[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1178300593.28758.85.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 17:43:13 +0000
From: simo <idra@...ba.org>
To: Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org>
Cc: Gerald Carter <coffeedude.jerry@...il.com>,
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 Fri, 2007-05-04 at 10:12 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> Actually I disagree. I think Christoph is correct. These
> are two independent protocols and should be in two different
> modules.
They are independent the same way NFS v4 is independent from NFS v3 and
v2. Independent but related, and most importantly, one is the fallback
of the other.
> > 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.
If the result is that the fallback work without user space intervention,
then I agree with you.
I was just pointing out that the 2 protocols are not in fact completely
independent and this fact need to be properly considered and factored in
into this decision, nothing more, nothing less.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra@...ba.org
http://samba.org
-
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