Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934075AbXEERZy (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 May 2007 13:25:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934082AbXEERZx (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 May 2007 13:25:53 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:46513 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934075AbXEERZw (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 May 2007 13:25:52 -0400 Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 10:55:13 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: simo Cc: Jeremy Allison , Gerald Carter , Christoph Hellwig , Steve French , linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-cifs-client] Re: SMB2 file system - should it be a distinct module Message-ID: <20070505095513.GA9935@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , simo , Jeremy Allison , Gerald Carter , Steve French , linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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> <1178300593.28758.85.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1178300593.28758.85.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 898 Lines: 20 On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 05:43:13PM +0000, simo 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. Just FYI: although nfs2/3 and nfs4 are in the same kernel module they actually are different file_system_types, and there is no automatic fallback in the kernel. Given how little is actually shared between nfs v2/3 and 4 it might have been a better idea to make it a totally separate module. - 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/