Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:58:10 +0200
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: Guenter Kukkukk <linux@kukkukk.com>, samba-technical@lists.samba.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sfrench@samba.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] remove smbfs
Message-ID: <20080130225810.GU29368@does.not.exist>
References: <20080128220835.GF8767@does.not.exist> <200801302216.13788.linux@kukkukk.com> <20080130174103.17ff8197@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080130174103.17ff8197@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2812
Lines: 70

On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
> Guenter Kukkukk <linux@kukkukk.com> wrote:
> 
> > Am Montag, 28. Januar 2008 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> > > I remember that there were some small things missing in CIFS for 
> > > completely replacing the unmaintained smbfs when we discussed
> > > removing smbfs back in 2005 due to smbfs being unmaintained.
> > > 
> > > CIFS has improved since, smbfs is still unmaintained, and it's
> > > becoming time to finally remove smbfs.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
> > > 
> > 
> > "... unmaintained smbfs ..." is not quite right, see
> >    http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/6/94
> > Before removing it now completely, drop
> >   Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> > a note.
> > Afaik, Redhat still has customers which rely on smbfs.
> > 
> 
> Some of our older products use smbfs, but our newer stuff (RHEL5 and
> up) have smbfs disabled. Fedora has had smbfs disabled for quite some
> time as well. I've heard very few complaints (though maybe they're just
> not getting to me).
> 
> I have no problem with targeting smbfs for removal, but I thought
> Andrew had an unofficial policy that we should first mark things to be
> deprecated, and then remove them 2 releases later. That seems like a
> sensible policy to me. If we mark it deprecated in 2.6.25 then we can
> remove it after 2.6.26 is released.
> 
> It might not even hurt to have a nice loud printk when the smbfs
> module is plugged in to warn users that it's slated to be removed,
> and that they should move to CIFS as soon as possible.

Andrew has this with a target date of December 2006 (sic) for the 
removal buried in -mm...

> > In addition, cifs cannot completely replace smbfs atm.
> > Even todays sold NAS-boxes (often running anchient 
> > samba-2.x.x) work only with smbfs on the client side.
> 
> It would be ideal if someone were to report these problems as bugs. I
> remember some of those in the past, but haven't heard of any cases of
> that sort of thing for some time. When I have, Steve has generally
> been very good about tracking down the cause and fixing it.

More exactly, one of the main advantages of removing redundant code like 
smbfs is that people are finally forced to report their bugs.

> Cheers,

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/