On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 08:01:31PM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote: > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > >On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:04:54AM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote: > >>Is there a reason this change was made? And is there a reason why > > > >The change wasn't against NETSMBCRYPTO, it just corrected the way > >kernel modules get their options. > > > >>NETSMBCRYPTO is not in GENERIC? To me, it seems that breaking smbfs > >>between releases within 6.x violates POLA... I suspect a large number of > >>people (myself included) have always used smbfs for passworded shares > >>and it's "just worked". > > > >This issue is under investigation by the Release Engineers and yours > >truly. I'm sorry my change to the kernel module framework caused > >the confusion, but so the whole issue has got attention at last. > >Of course, it must be fixed before 6.1-R. In the meanwhile, I'd > >like to hear about any reservations on making NETSMBCRYPTO the > >default case for netsmb/smbfs. Thanks! > > I don't see any problem with making it the default case, since before the > framework cleanup, it effectively was default.
Thank you for telling your opinion! I'm preparing the respective commit to HEAD right now, going to MFC it after a short period of testing by CURRENT users. -- Yar _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
