On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 01:04:29PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote: >> >> The folks at Microsoft (who are, of course, well ahead in their >> SMB2.x implementations) are very surprised that we are trying to >> maintain a single codebase for both protocols. (I heard the same >> thing from several Microsoft engineers during separate >> conversations.) > > That's just a misunderstanding of how our codebase is > structured, that's all. > > The SMB1 parser/protocol engine is completely different code from the SMB2 > parser/protocol engine in Samba. > > What is in common (as is also in common in Microsoft's codebase) > is the code that implements the underlying file system functionality. > > They have a common NTFS (and now ReFS) codebase, we have a common > map POSIX to Windows semantics layer. On the client side, as a compromise with those who wanted one module, (ie in Pavel's tree) we keep the majority of the smb2 specific code in distinct c files which are not linked in by default to cifs.ko. Sharing the same transport code does have headaches though as the discussion above mentions with regard to "credits" vs. "maxmpx" but it has turned out better than I originally expected (ie the changes to common code) -- Thanks, Steve -- 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
