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;
From:   Paulo Alcantara <pc@cjr.nz>
To:     Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@suse.de>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, smfrench@gmail.com,
        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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Rename "cifs" module to "smbfs"
In-Reply-To: <20220803144519.rn6ybbroedgmuaie@cyberdelia>
References: <20220801190933.27197-1-ematsumiya@suse.de>
 <c05f4fc668fa97e737758ab03030d7170c0edbd9.camel@kernel.org>
 <20220802193620.dyvt5qiszm2pobsr@cyberdelia>
 <6f3479265b446d180d71832fd0c12650b908ebe2.camel@kernel.org>
 <20220803144519.rn6ybbroedgmuaie@cyberdelia>
Date:   Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:50:17 -0300
Message-ID: <87fsidnrmu.fsf@cjr.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@suse.de> writes:

> A note on backports: I myself (and Paulo) do the backports for our SLE
> products, sometimes down to SLE11-SP4 (based on kernel 3.0) and I
> could not see what other issues could appear given if we backport this
> rename to released products.
>
> Of course, I don't know every process for every distro vendors, so if
> someone could provide feedback on this, I'd appreciate.
>
> @Paulo I'd like to hear your opinion on possible issues of future backports,
> if we backported this rename patch to SLES.

We all know that backports aren't usually easy to deal with --
especially when doing them on very old kernels.  So, if we're gonna make
them even more difficult, there must be a good reason like a new feature
or bugfix.  This rename simply doesn't justify all the trouble, IMO.

Besides, for any future fixes marked for stable after this rename, it's
gonna be tricky as well.  Of course, we can definitely handle them but
not worth the trouble, too.

Just to be clear, this is a NAK from me.