On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:58:56 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/08/2010 08:33 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > I see no real need to leave these sorts of options under an > > EXPERIMENTAL ifdef. Since you need a mount option to turn this code > > on, that only blows out the testing matrix. > > > > local_leases has been under the EXPERIMENTAL tag for some time, but > > it's only the mount option that's under this label. Move it out > > from under this tag. > > > > The NTLMSSP code is also under EXPERIMENTAL, but it needs a mount > > option to turn it on, and in the future any distro will reasonably > > want this enabled. Go ahead and move it out from under the > > EXPERIMENTAL tag. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/cifs/cifssmb.c | 5 +-- > > fs/cifs/connect.c | 4 -- > > fs/cifs/sess.c | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------- > > 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) > > Moving local_leases out sounds fine to me. While I agree that NTLMSSP is > something everyone wants moving ahead, I'm not sure whether there are > currently any known/open issues with specific Servers. > Shirish? > > Assuming there are none, > > Acked-by: Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> I think the NTLMSSP code is still a work in progress. There are still some bugs, but Shirish has really fixed and cleaned the code up recently. At this point, it works well enough that there's not much benefit to keeping it under an EXPERIMENTAL tag. That just makes it hard to integrate the code. It's messy and you have to deal with two different compile-time scenarios. I'd feel differently if were code that changed the "normal" functioning of CIFS, but since you have to use a mount option to turn this, I think we should just go for it. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
