On 5/4/07, Jeremy Allison <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:46:05AM -0500, Gerald Carter wrote:
> Long term I agree that CIFS and SMB2 should be in the same .ko
Actually I disagree. I think Christoph is correct. These
are two independent protocols and should be in two different
modules.
> 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.
Jeremy.
There is also the obvious tradeoff of "easier to update frequently"
vs. "easier to write" which is a primary factor.
1) as distinct .ko files smb2 and cifs can be updated independently
(the former marked broken/experimental). Updating smb2 won't
risk breaking cifs
2) but implemented in the same module, there is somewhat less code to write.
--
Thanks,
Steve
-
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]
