Jeremy Allison writes:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:24:03PM -0500, Derrell.Lipman@UnwiredUniverse.com wrote:
>> Quick update... The problem appears to be that interpret_long_filename()
>> is returning 0 as obtained from SVAL(base, 0) for each of the additional
>> names, so interpret_long_filename() is being recalled with the same pointer
>> over and over.

>
> Ok - it looks like the length field isn't being set correctly.
> Hmmmm. I'll look at a patch to get around that problem. Thanks
> for tracking this down !


Ok, great. It kind of makes sense that the next entry offset would be zero at
the end of the FINDFIRST response.

Maybe an appropriate fix is to patch the "next entry offset" when you append
'p' to 'dirlist'... sort of like adding a new element at the end of a linked
list???

Derrell