On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 03:05:39PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote: > On 03/09/2012 02:14 PM, Jeremy Allison 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. > > I was thinking of the CIFS client, which is what Jeff was talking about. Then I am confused, sorry :-). > Keep in mind, though, that SMB1 is dead and will never make use of > things like durable, resilient, and persistent handles. It will > also never fully expose the semantics of ReFS. Similarly, SMB2 will > never need to worry about presenting DOS and OS/2 as SMB1 does. > > So some of the semantics that file system mapping layer has to > handle are going to be purely for one protocol or the other. The > biggest part of the overlap there will be NTFS semantics... which > is, admittedly, the lions share of the market now and for some time > to come. So what we'll end up doing is migrating the layer to SMB2 semantics and then mapping the old SMB1 semantics into a layer that goes on top (it's like one of those topological tricks of turning a sphere inside out :-). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVVfs4zKrgk We did it before when migrating from DOS semantics to NT semantics. Jeremy. -- 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
