mount_smbfs

[Jim Smith-7]

Does mount_smbfs compile and run for the sparc64 port?  I know that is
won't for sparc64 machines on FreeBSD [it indicates that is will run on
i386 only].  I also know that OSX has a version of mount_smbfs, so it
must compile on other platforms [it does not compile on the mac_ppc
port of NetBSD--I've tried it].

So, has anyone compiled and run this on the sparc64 platform with
NetBSD 3.0?  Thanks.

--


The other Jim Smith

[Hubert Feyrer-4]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Jim Smith wrote:
> So, has anyone compiled and run this on the sparc64 platform with
> NetBSD 3.0?  Thanks.

It's part of the regular NetBSD release:

babylon5% tar plzvtf /pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-3.0/sparc64/binary/sets/base.tgz | grep mount_smbfs
-r-xr-xr-x  2 root     wheel          0 Dec 19 03:51 ./rescue/mount_smbfs == ./rescue/cat
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root     wheel      58969 Dec 19 03:44 ./sbin/mount_smbfs


  - Hubert

[jcarnat]

I will just add that you have to tweak your kernel.
See http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-sparc64/2005/11/02/0001.html to see
why you need to add support for nsmb in sparc64 kernel.

When done, you can mount Samba shares from you sparc64 station.

On Thu, March 9, 2006 02:49, Hubert Feyrer wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Jim Smith wrote:
>
>> So, has anyone compiled and run this on the sparc64 platform with
>> NetBSD 3.0?  Thanks.
>>
>
> It's part of the regular NetBSD release:
>
>
> babylon5% tar plzvtf /pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-3.0/sparc64/binary/sets/base.tgz
> | grep mount_smbfs
> -r-xr-xr-x  2 root     wheel          0 Dec 19 03:51 ./rescue/mount_smbfs
> == ./rescue/cat
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root     wheel      58969 Dec 19 03:44 ./sbin/mount_smbfs
>
>
>
> - Hubert
>
>

--
NetBSD brought my daemons to the Sun.

[Michael-John Turner]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 09:49:55AM +0100, Joel CARNAT wrote:
> I will just add that you have to tweak your kernel.
> See http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-sparc64/2005/11/02/0001.html to see
> why you need to add support for nsmb in sparc64 kernel.

Is there any particular reason why those options aren't in GENERIC on
sparc64, even if commented out (they're enabled in the i386 GENERIC, for
example)? mount_smbfs(8) is built on sparc64, and appears to work.

Should I log a pr?

-mj
--
Michael-John Turner | http://weblogs.turner.org.za/mj/
mj@...    | Open Source in WC ZA - http://www.clug.org.za/

[Hubert Feyrer-4]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Michael-John Turner wrote:
> Should I log a pr?

I recommend sending a patch for review here, first.


  - Hubert

[Michael-John Turner]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:50:00AM +0100, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> I recommend sending a patch for review here, first.

See attached - against -current of a day or two ago. Busy building a new
kernel now - will reboot when I get home and check if all is still OK :)

Any thoughts on updating the various mount_* manpages to include the
kernel options required to use the filesystem in question? IMHO, it's a
good idea. If there's no objection, I'll submit some patches for those
this evening.

-mj
--
Michael-John Turner | http://weblogs.turner.org.za/mj/
mj@...    | Open Source in WC ZA - http://www.clug.org.za/

--- GENERIC32.orig 2006-03-08 23:02:23.000000000 +0200
+++ GENERIC32 2006-03-09 12:48:36.000000000 +0200
@@ -163,6 +163,7 @@
 file-system UNION # union file system
 file-system MSDOSFS # MS-DOS FAT filesystem(s).
 file-system PTYFS # /dev/pts/N support
+file-system SMBFS # experimental - CIFS; also needs nsmb (below)
 #file-system TMPFS # experimental - Efficient memory file-system
 #file-system UDF # experimental - OSTA UDF CD/DVD file-system
 
@@ -845,3 +846,6 @@
 #options VERIFIED_EXEC_FP_SHA1
 #options VERIFIED_EXEC_FP_MD5
 
+# a pseudo device needed for SMBFS
+pseudo-device   nsmb # experimental - SMB requester
+

[Hubert Feyrer-4]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Michael-John Turner wrote:
>> I recommend sending a patch for review here, first.
>
> See attached - against -current of a day or two ago. Busy building a new
> kernel now - will reboot when I get home and check if all is still OK :)

OK with me, but I'd like to hear opinion from someone more competent on
the sparc64 port.


> Any thoughts on updating the various mount_* manpages to include the
> kernel options required to use the filesystem in question? IMHO, it's a
> good idea. If there's no objection, I'll submit some patches for those
> this evening.

I don't think kernel options belong to userland tools.
I don't think that we do that anywhere else.


  - Hubert

[Michael-John Turner]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 12:04:32PM +0100, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> OK with me, but I'd like to hear opinion from someone more competent on
> the sparc64 port.

OK.

> I don't think kernel options belong to userland tools.
> I don't think that we do that anywhere else.

There are a few - eg wsmoused(8), ipf(8), the various compat*(8), etc.
Where would be the best place to document such options that relate to, eg,
filesystems? Perhaps a manual page per filesystem, in section 4?

-mj
--
Michael-John Turner | http://weblogs.turner.org.za/mj/
mj@...    | Open Source in WC ZA - http://www.clug.org.za/

[Hubert Feyrer-4]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Michael-John Turner wrote:
>> I don't think kernel options belong to userland tools.
>> I don't think that we do that anywhere else.
>
> There are a few - eg wsmoused(8), ipf(8), the various compat*(8), etc.
> Where would be the best place to document such options that relate to, eg,
> filesystems? Perhaps a manual page per filesystem, in section 4?

I have no idea what the best way is.
I think a driver/filesystem's manpage would be the best thing.
That would probably mean splitting up options.4. Lots of work, lots of
bikeshed potential...

  - Hubert

[Hubert Feyrer-4]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
>> See attached - against -current of a day or two ago. Busy building a new
>> kernel now - will reboot when I get home and check if all is still OK :)

I've committed your patch after the sparc64 port maintainer OK'd it.


  - Hubert

[Michael-John Turner]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 12:26:36PM +0100, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> I have no idea what the best way is.
> I think a driver/filesystem's manpage would be the best thing.
> That would probably mean splitting up options.4. Lots of work, lots of
> bikeshed potential...

Ouch - splitting up options(4) would not be fun. You're right about the
bikeshed potential - perhaps I should just submit a manpage for smbfs(4)
and one or two others and STFU :)

-mj
--
Michael-John Turner | http://weblogs.turner.org.za/mj/
mj@...    | Open Source in WC ZA - http://www.clug.org.za/

[Hubert Feyrer-4]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Michael-John Turner wrote:
> perhaps I should just submit a manpage for smbfs(4)
> and one or two others and STFU :)

Well, there's no prior art for filesystem manpages...
IF that is considered worth doing (not my decision; but I don't know who
would decide it), it should be done consistently for all filesystems.


  - Hubert

[Michael-John Turner]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 12:38:47PM +0100, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> I've committed your patch after the sparc64 port maintainer OK'd it.

Great, thanks!

-mj
--
Michael-John Turner | http://weblogs.turner.org.za/mj/
mj@...    | Open Source in WC ZA - http://www.clug.org.za/

[Michael-John Turner]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 12:47:54PM +0100, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> Well, there's no prior art for filesystem manpages...

Indeed. I haven't checked FreeBSD, but OpenBSD certainly doesn't appear to
have any (at least that's what a first-glance find in the source tree
suggests).

> IF that is considered worth doing (not my decision; but I don't know who
> would decide it), it should be done consistently for all filesystems.

Perhaps I should prepare a draft filesystem manual page and send it to
netbsd-docs for review.

-mj
--
Michael-John Turner | http://weblogs.turner.org.za/mj/
mj@...    | Open Source in WC ZA - http://www.clug.org.za/

[Hubert Feyrer-4]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Michael-John Turner wrote:
> Perhaps I should prepare a draft filesystem manual page and send it to
> netbsd-docs for review.

I'd rather suggest tech-kern@, as that's where filesystems belong.
And we/you're talking about documentation for those.


  - Hubert

[Michael-John Turner]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:09:49PM +0100, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> I'd rather suggest tech-kern@, as that's where filesystems belong.
> And we/you're talking about documentation for those.

OK, fair enough - will do so once I have something ready (hopefully this
evening).

-mj
--
Michael-John Turner | http://weblogs.turner.org.za/mj/
mj@...    | Open Source in WC ZA - http://www.clug.org.za/

[Jim Smith-7]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 09:49:55 +0100 (CET)
"Joel CARNAT" <joel@...> wrote:

> I will just add that you have to tweak your kernel.
> See http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-sparc64/2005/11/02/0001.html to
> see why you need to add support for nsmb in sparc64 kernel.

That is straightforward enough.
 
> When done, you can mount Samba shares from you sparc64 station.
>
Can I mount Windoze XP drives, as I can with mount_smbfs on FreeBSD?

--


The other Jim Smith

[jcarnat]

On Thu, March 9, 2006 19:46, Jim Smith wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 09:49:55 +0100 (CET)
> "Joel CARNAT" <joel@...> wrote:
>
>
>> I will just add that you have to tweak your kernel.
>> See http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-sparc64/2005/11/02/0001.html to
>> see why you need to add support for nsmb in sparc64 kernel.
>
> That is straightforward enough.
>
>> When done, you can mount Samba shares from you sparc64 station.
> Can I mount Windoze XP drives, as I can with mount_smbfs on FreeBSD?
>

don't know, I have only mounted SMB shares from Linux/SAMBA ; but probably.


--
NetBSD brought my daemons to the Sun.