RE: [[PATCH v1] 30/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Add SMBDirect transport to Makefile

[Long Li]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Talpey
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 2:20 PM
> To: Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steve French <sfrench@xxxxxxxxx>;
> linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; samba-technical@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [[PATCH v1] 30/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Add SMBDirect transport to
> Makefile
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-cifs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cifs-
> > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Long Li
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 4:11 PM
> > To: Steve French <sfrench@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > samba- technical@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [[PATCH v1] 30/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Add SMBDirect transport to
> > Makefile
> >
> >  cifs-$(CONFIG_CIFS_SMB2) += smb2ops.o smb2maperror.o
> smb2transport.o \
> > -                           smb2misc.o smb2pdu.o smb2inode.o smb2file.o
> > +                           smb2misc.o smb2pdu.o smb2inode.o
> > + smb2file.o cifsrdma.o
> 
> "cifsrdma.o" is a really confusing choice of names. SMB Direct is only possible
> when the negotiated SMB dialect is SMB3. "CIFS" historically means a dialect
> of SMB1, which many of us would like to see be in a separate, and therefore
> omittable, module. Please use a name more indicative of the function,
> perhaps "smbdirect.o".

Yes, I will make the naming changes.

> 
> Tom.