I am not as worried about code cleanliness as I am about losing function, especially as it is sometimes hard to figure out how many users would be affected by removing function. I mildly prefer leaving the nfs syntax if it makes it easier for nfs users to use smb3, but we could make a stub mount helper that parses nfs syntax and simply calls mount.cifs if you prefer that approach - in any case I don't feel strongly about nfs syntax. On the question of domain name - since Samba uses that form for username (which allows domain and username and password to be overloaded) -- how do samba utilities deal with the conflict you are trying to fix by removing support for including domain\user%password? On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:10:38 -0500 > Scott Lovenberg <scott.lovenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > In commit 569cfcb3a, we added a warning of the removal for support for >> > username= options in the form of DOMAIN/username%password. This patch >> > removes that support as promised prior to the 5.9 release. >> >> >> That makes the code so much cleaner. :) Next up for 6.0, removing NFS syntax. >> > > It does. That said, I'm not opposed to dropping this patch if > someone can outline a compelling use-case for this syntax. I don't see > how this makes anything easier vs. using discrete mount options, but > I'm willing to reconsider it if there is such a case. > > -- > Jeff Layton <jlayton@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 -- 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
