Re: SMB2 file system - should it be a distinct module

[Jan Engelhardt]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/