2010/11/13 Pavel Shilovsky <piastryyy@xxxxxxxxx>: > 2010/11/13 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> I don't think this patch deals correctly with servers that are >> listening on RFC1001_PORT but not CIFS_PORT. With two mounts to the >> same server that don't specify a port, you'll end up with two sockets, >> right? > And from another hand: If user doesn't specify the port we should think that it means the 445 port. If user wants to mount 139 port, he should specify this port manually. So, there is no error with the patch in this case. >From this point of view we should remove trying with 139 port if we failed with 445 port. What do you think about it? -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
