Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031402AbXEDRnQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 13:43:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031413AbXEDRnQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 13:43:16 -0400 Received: from mail.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:56209 "EHLO lists.samba.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031402AbXEDRnP (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 13:43:15 -0400 Subject: Re: [linux-cifs-client] Re: SMB2 file system - should it be a distinct module From: simo To: Jeremy Allison Cc: Gerald Carter , Christoph Hellwig , Steve French , linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070504171200.GE31976@samba1> References: <524f69650704301552j13cd46e5y53a233af753e0548@mail.gmail.com> <20070501090657.GA17949@infradead.org> <1178198489.28758.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070503141742.GB20328@infradead.org> <1178203013.28758.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4639F5AD.20807@gmail.com> <20070504171200.GE31976@samba1> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Samba Team Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 17:43:13 +0000 Message-Id: <1178300593.28758.85.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1405 Lines: 40 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@samba.org http://samba.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/