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/
