Nevermind 0x203 was the next free setfsinfo - 0x20c is the next free
setfileinfo level
I did fix the typo in the name of the transport encryption cap


On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Steve French wrote:
> arggh - just made a typo - will fix. Jeremy's note reminded me -
> 0x20c is the next free one.


> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> > >
> > > * Jeremy Allison wrote, On 24/04/08 17:14:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:59:33PM +0100, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > * Sam Liddicott wrote, On 21/04/08 09:44:
> > >
> > >
> > > * James Peach wrote, On 20/04/08 18:33:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If so, could you please add documentation to
> > > , or a page that is
> > > linked from there.
> > >
> > >
> > > It seems that 0x003 was already taken:
> > >
> > > http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/UNIX_Extensions
> > >
> > > says:
> > > SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION 0x203 Call to set up an encryption
> > > context.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it was erroneously in File Info (and Path Info) levels and then
> > > just moved.
> > >
> > > Steve, I guess we need 0x204, or shall I change the docs to squash on
> > > SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION?
> > >
> > > No, SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION is used in current 3.2 code
> > > as a SETFSINFO sub code. 0x204 is used 0x20C is the next unused
> > > SETFILEINFO sub code.
> > >
> > > I think I want an FSINFO sub-code not a FILEINFO sub-code, so 0x204 is OK?
> > >
> > > Or am I confused?
> > >
> > > Sam
> > >

> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Steve
> >

>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>




--
Thanks,

Steve