[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210428204035.GD7400@fieldses.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:40:35 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Aurélien Aptel <aaptel@...e.com>
Cc: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
smfrench@...il.com, senozhatsky@...omium.org, hyc.lee@...il.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@....de, hch@...radead.org,
ronniesahlberg@...il.com, aurelien.aptel@...il.com,
sandeen@...deen.net, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
colin.king@...onical.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] cifsd: introduce new SMB3 kernel server
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 10:19:58PM +0200, Aurélien Aptel wrote:
> bfields@...ldses.org (J. Bruce Fields) writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 09:28:14AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> >> This is the patch series for cifsd(ksmbd) kernel server.
> >
> > Looks like this series probably isn't bisectable. E.g. while looking at
> > the ACL code I noticed ksmbd_vfs_setxattr is defined in a later patch
> > than it's first used in.
>
> The Kconfig and Makefile are added in the last patch so it should be ok.
I'm not sure if doing that way is really any better than making it one
big patch.
I'd rather see multiple patches that were actually functional at each
stage: e.g., start with a server that responds to some sort of rpc-level
ping but does nothing else, then add basic file IO, etc.
I don't know if that's practical.
--b.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists