Received: by 2002:ac0:e350:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id g16csp2699515imn; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:37:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6ej1wbSdCfiHo+CqZ43ko4RMrULGT4Z+xSze5ByY2SeXWGOxhO3JD/O/5Iq0W/tUWb8gJ/ X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c40e:b0:16e:cdf5:3dc1 with SMTP id k14-20020a170902c40e00b0016ecdf53dc1mr16653220plk.130.1659469047728; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 12:37:27 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1659469047; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=vzhHVUG3SK0hPCfdfnp5xQuIiHWMF3ZxU9tt1APKK4yWEvoz1iIDeTQvzj6pGd2MVU TvIgLJ6cYfc8uFQACMqsrjuf+l/5PRi1W8dcGKGs030F5Pv5iFTkdLr377Iqsj5/bJZD fR+Nty/vl8xPXHhxg1BqwY6+9ZdmZC+X5jqbBWJ1CN9eRcDgrY0HO+qIjxZiobkRnW3M oLxCru/NLuJyGlWnBUyrSkh4Q8UlExnfDODZF/gaLshOg+IbU8ynYuJIXo4Z6DLiacvH n43YYU2glU+Os8g/qZCfZRsNnzcYcxR3ZwrybPrUOaYYFjDxA96ARi1UpDU8PtMIQS/4 x77g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature :dkim-signature; bh=Bg9h887C8gVWobrXRdOT9+x2p3w/uvq6a0lh9g6ugdw=; b=GiNopFuc1tM4gfQxv0KnT+JXdYnVbbO5onSqHmFYdBuyr5p+2qADoYYicEVm6cvldC zG5H1/P/2ddHpV3q/OFvIUeXzLFghm3o4AQlAhLYuYf1+Heuvug7rR6nj1/sNZ4f1onq TPa8Pe7FM5WjYx/eL/am99fa2bZgnAJ13u6WRaTr0jIcgNjWRnhonoDty3YTIiNrjI9R C5psRs9BmgCF+5E3iv3fRzuDeR7h7bUp8qlKtJcPVe4V1sCXgmWaOa+gf2eEk6V3Q8KQ JNOQfJQOuVHrYTX9513jDF8gmO0YCeFJ6gmjao3FZgl+6VPUO+cRIEJ90xQL4D+20K0f b2dA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=sPQYvAQE; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.de; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.de Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q7-20020a170902f78700b0016ef3d9ed6bsi146920pln.530.2022.08.02.12.37.13; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 12:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=sPQYvAQE; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.de; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.de Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230390AbiHBT2R (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:28:17 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52538 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230207AbiHBT2M (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:28:12 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C365932ECA; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 722FD1FD18; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 19:28:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1659468489; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Bg9h887C8gVWobrXRdOT9+x2p3w/uvq6a0lh9g6ugdw=; b=sPQYvAQERl6eWHdAPuPNsyhfaVCEmkC9r8nSCcKD4psu/To3u5G33OiKMg8Ee+at+kjS46 lY21UGgRR9gRSNkgmOd1CZ9ZVjw8h/UYU/VgJYTubmxycxMqNdzEp5hcoWkCXJEg3OXQXL b2fRFFAs4LcTotsP2QVkgkgV65An0P8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1659468489; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Bg9h887C8gVWobrXRdOT9+x2p3w/uvq6a0lh9g6ugdw=; b=gHBnpQbwmKAesnR9qkEQagwr1eS9+zywFq4ADlHcZMXXXuLNNmJJAeNUfpu2sHUUhVE1Y5 fffmCIMNujceztBw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1C1913A8E; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 19:28:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id ok4kKMh66WI/aQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 02 Aug 2022 19:28:08 +0000 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 16:28:06 -0300 From: Enzo Matsumiya To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, smfrench@gmail.com, pc@cjr.nz, ronniesahlberg@gmail.com, nspmangalore@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tom@talpey.com, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, pshilovsky@samba.org, jlayton@kernel.org, rpenny@samba.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Rename "cifs" module to "smbfs" Message-ID: <20220802192806.6ryronlqvus2ua26@cyberdelia> References: <20220802190048.19881-1-ematsumiya@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/02, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 04:00:43PM -0300, Enzo Matsumiya wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As part of the ongoing effort to remove the "cifs" nomenclature from the >> Linux SMB client, I'm proposing the rename of the module to "smbfs". >> >> As it's widely known, CIFS is associated to SMB1.0, which, in turn, is >> associated with the security issues it presented in the past. Using >> "SMBFS" makes clear what's the protocol in use for outsiders, but also >> unties it from any particular protocol version. It also fits in the >> already existing "fs/smbfs_common" and "fs/ksmbd" naming scheme. >> >> This short patch series only changes directory names and includes/ifdefs in >> headers and source code, and updates docs to reflect the rename. Other >> than that, no source code/functionality is modified (WIP though). > >Why did you not reply to Jeff Layton's concern before posting a v2? Hm, I was pretty sure I did. Sorry about that, I got confused on how my mail client organized the replies to the initial thread. Replying to Jeff right now.