Hi,
I noticed that LFS support has made it into 2.5, but it's not on the status
list (http://kernelnewbies.org/status/latest.html).
IIRC there were some plans to add oplock support to smbfs (newbie alert:
linux smb client, oplocks are already in samba server). Maybe that should
be tracked on the status too.
Mike
> I noticed that LFS support has made it into 2.5, but it's not on the status
> list (http://kernelnewbies.org/status/latest.html).
If it's useful for a lot of people, yes, it makes sense to put it there.
So I just added it to the latest update on the Web site (URL above).
> IIRC there were some plans to add oplock support to smbfs (newbie alert:
> linux smb client, oplocks are already in samba server). Maybe that should
> be tracked on the status too.
If someone can provide me with a status for this, I'll add it as well.
Cheers,
-- Guillaume
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that LFS support has made it into 2.5, but it's not on the status
> list (http://kernelnewbies.org/status/latest.html).
>
> IIRC there were some plans to add oplock support to smbfs (newbie alert:
> linux smb client, oplocks are already in samba server). Maybe that should
> be tracked on the status too.
Using the terminology from the status page I guess this could be the smbfs
list:
Alpha smbfs: I/O rewrite, smbiod
Alpha smbfs: Fcntl locking + smb oplock support
Alpha smbfs: smbconnect for better fstab integration
Planning smbfs: Readahead support (async readpage/writepage)
Planning smbfs: Read/Write request merging
But won't the list become very long if every little driver included all
the planned changes? Not my problem I guess ...
Also I don't know if any of this will be ready to be merged within the 6
month limit mentioned in one of the early announcements.
Regarding the updated statuspage, it isn't the "Samba filesystem", it is
the SMB filesystem (usually smbfs, SMBFS, SMBfs and possibly other
variations).
/Urban
> Using the terminology from the status page I guess this could be the smbfs
> list:
>
> Alpha smbfs: I/O rewrite, smbiod
> Alpha smbfs: Fcntl locking + smb oplock support
> Alpha smbfs: smbconnect for better fstab integration
> Planning smbfs: Readahead support (async readpage/writepage)
> Planning smbfs: Read/Write request merging
>
> But won't the list become very long if every little driver included all
> the planned changes? Not my problem I guess ...
Yes, I am trying to limit the status list to the big items so that it
stays readable for people.
> Also I don't know if any of this will be ready to be merged within the 6
> month limit mentioned in one of the early announcements.
Why don't we do this, if there is anything that gets close to inclusion
and you feel it is a big thing lots of people have been anxiously waiting
for, let me know and I'll put it in.
> Regarding the updated statuspage, it isn't the "Samba filesystem", it is
> the SMB filesystem (usually smbfs, SMBFS, SMBfs and possibly other
> variations).
Fixed, thanks.
-- Guillaume