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;
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 22:56:55 -0300
From:   Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@suse.de>
To:     Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, 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, samba-technical@lists.samba.org,
        pshilovsky@samba.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Rename "cifs" module to "smbfs"
Message-ID: <20220803015655.7u5b6i4eo5sfnryb@cyberdelia>
References: <20220801190933.27197-1-ematsumiya@suse.de>
 <c05f4fc668fa97e737758ab03030d7170c0edbd9.camel@kernel.org>
 <20220802193620.dyvt5qiszm2pobsr@cyberdelia>
 <6f3479265b446d180d71832fd0c12650b908ebe2.camel@kernel.org>
 <1c2e8880-3efe-b55d-ee50-87d57efc3130@talpey.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1c2e8880-3efe-b55d-ee50-87d57efc3130@talpey.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 08/02, Tom Talpey wrote:
>The initial goal is to modularize the SMB1 code, so it can be completely
>removed from a running system. The extensive refactoring logically leads
>to this directory renaming, but renaming is basically a side effect.
>
>Stamping out the four-letter word C-I-F-S is a secondary goal. At this
>point, the industry has stopped using it. You make a good point that
>it's still visible outside the kernel source though.
>
>It makes good sense to do the refactoring in place, at first. Splitting
>the {smb1,cifs}*.[ch] files will be more complex, but maybe easier to
>review and merge, without folding in a new directory tree and git rm/mv.
>Either way, there will be at least two modules, maybe three if we split
>out generic subroutines.
>
>Enzo, you're up to your elbows in this code now, is it too ugly without
>the new directories?

Having things in separate directories and code appropriately distributed
in coherently named headers/sources certainly makes things easier to
work with.

Of course this patch is not important, by far, but from what I
gathered, it was some people's wish to move away from "cifs" name.

Answering your question (IIUC), Tom, I'm ok with postponing this change.

>Tom.

Cheers,

Enzo