[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070504171200.GE31976@samba1>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 10:12:00 -0700
From: Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org>
To: Gerald Carter <coffeedude.jerry@...il.com>
Cc: simo <idra@...ba.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-cifs-client] Re: SMB2 file system - should it be a distinct module
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:46:05AM -0500, Gerald Carter wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Simo,
>
> > I guess DFS referrals can work cross protocol, so if you are redirected
> > from a longhorn server to a windoes 2000 or a samba server you want to
> > be able to follow the DFS referral and not return an error.
> > To do that you need to have either 1 module that support both protocols
> > or a way from one module to call the other. Just separating the 2
> > without any glue will not work (or you will have to add some userspace
> > upcall hack to make it work).
>
> Long term I agree that CIFS and SMB2 should be in the same .ko
Actually I disagree. I think Christoph is correct. These
are two independent protocols and should be in two different
modules.
> But NTLM 0.12 still works for Vista and DFS referrals.
> Breaking out SMB2 initially means that it will not clutter
> the working cifs.ko code. Remember that an SMB2 client fs is
> mostly research at this point, and not engineering.
Long term the common functions should be factored out
and put into a lower-level module that both cifs and
SMB2 are dependent upon.
That's the cleaner solution IMHO.
Jeremy.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists