Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 May 2007 11:30:31 +0200 (MEST) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: SMB2 file system - should it be a distinct module |
| |
On Apr 30 2007 17:52, Steve French wrote: > > Now that we (Samba team) understand enough about it to implement > prototypes (there is a prototype server in Samba 4, and a userspace > client library for testing), we need to decide whether the kernel > implementation of SMB2 client should be a distinct module or just part > of the cifs.ko module.
Do it like CONFIG_FAT_FS/CONFIG_MSDOS_FS/CONFIG_VFAT_FS...
config SMB_COMMON tristate
config CIFS select SMB_COMMON
config SMB2 select SMB_COMMON
> SMB2 (the protocol) is smaller than cifs,
Could not they have named it CIFS2... :p
And, what also puzzles me... almost every filesystem that's not at revision 1 anymore (ext2/3/4, reiser4, smb2) does not have the usually omnipresent "fs" suffix anymore (cf. reiserfs, smbfs). Maybe it's time to drop all the "fs" suffixes? :)
Jan -- - 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/
| |