On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 10:12 -0700, Jeremy Allison 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.
> > But NTLM 0.12 still works for Vista and DFS referrals.
> > Breaking out SMB2 initially means that it will not clutter
> > the working cifs.ko code. Remember that an SMB2 client fs is
> > mostly research at this point, and not engineering.
>
> Long term the common functions should be factored out
> and put into a lower-level module that both cifs and
> SMB2 are dependent upon.
>
> That's the cleaner solution IMHO.
If the result is that the fallback work without user space intervention,
then I agree with you.
I was just pointing out that the 2 protocols are not in fact completely
independent and this fact need to be properly considered and factored in
into this decision, nothing more, nothing less.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: [email protected]
http://samba.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
