On 03/09/2012 02:16 PM, Steve French wrote:
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)
No doubt.
...and we certainly want only one piece of code actually creating and
managing connections to the server.
--
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/ -)----- Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/ -)----- ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/ -)----- crh@xxxxxxxxxxxx
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/ -)----- crh@xxxxxxxxx
--
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
