Re: [linux-cifs-client] Re: SMB2 file system - should it be a distinct module

["Steve French" <smfrench@gmail.com>]

On 5/4/07, Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org> 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