In article <20060828135258.GC26022@drowsy.duskware.de>,
Martin Husemann  <martin@duskware.de> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 01:45:41PM +0200, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
>> This needs to be discussed here. Who's our smbfs guru?
>
>The response as seen from the server in this case (0 directory entries
>returned, EndOfSearch not set and no error code) is not explained in the
>SMB specification. The change does just treat "0 entries returned" exactly
>as "end of search". I would, stylistically, do it this way:
>
>Index: smbfs_smb.c
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /cvsroot/src/sys/fs/smbfs/smbfs_smb.c,v
>retrieving revision 1.30
>diff -u -p -r1.30 smbfs_smb.c
>--- smbfs_smb.c	7 Jun 2006 22:33:38 -0000	1.30
>+++ smbfs_smb.c	28 Aug 2006 13:50:28 -0000
>@@ -1048,7 +1048,7 @@ smbfs_smb_trans2find2(struct smbfs_fctx 
> 	ctx->f_ecnt = tw;
> 	if ((error = md_get_uint16le(mdp, &tw)) != 0)
> 		return error;
>-	if (tw)
>+	if (tw != 0 || ctx->f_ecnt == 0)
> 		ctx->f_flags |= SMBFS_RDD_EOF | SMBFS_RDD_NOCLOSE;
> 	if ((error = md_get_uint16le(mdp, &tw)) != 0)
> 		return error;
>
>(which, as far as I can tell, should be semantically equivalent to the FreeBSD
>patch).
>
>Other opinions?

I committed it the way it was sent to FreeBSD, but feel free to change it,
since yours is shorter.

christos