On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 1:06 PM Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:43 PM Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:09 AM Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: <snip> > > I'm ok with directory renames, git handles it all well enough that the > > pain should be fairly minimal. > > > > I'd ask for that to be done during a fairly calm cycle, though, when > > there isn't a lot pending, so that any rename conflicts will be > > minimized. <snip> > > > Do you have any objections to me renaming the client's source > > > directory to "fs/smb3" (or fs/smb) and fs/smb3_common ...? > > > > So no objections to the rename per se, but can we please use a more > > specific name that is *not* tainted by history? > > > > I'll throw out two suggestions, but they are just that: (a) "smbfs" or > > (b) "smb-client". Due to git history for fs/smbfs directory (from many, many years ago) rename to "fs/smbfs" could be more confusing. So alternative suggestion which I implemented was rename the source directory from fs/cifs to "fs/smbfs_client." I will send a P/R for that since it is fairly quiet right now. If you would prefer that we wait for a future release that is fine too, but seems like low risk now and might reduce future confusion in the future (to rename the source directory).
