On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 22:56 -0300, Enzo Matsumiya wrote:
> On 08/02, Tom Talpey wrote:
> > The initial goal is to modularize the SMB1 code, so it can be completely
> > removed from a running system. The extensive refactoring logically leads
> > to this directory renaming, but renaming is basically a side effect.
> >
This is a great technical goal. Splitting up cifs.ko into smaller
modules would be great, in addition to being able to turn off smb1
support.
> > Stamping out the four-letter word C-I-F-S is a secondary goal. At this
> > point, the industry has stopped using it. You make a good point that
> > it's still visible outside the kernel source though.
> >
> > It makes good sense to do the refactoring in place, at first. Splitting
> > the {smb1,cifs}*.[ch] files will be more complex, but maybe easier to
> > review and merge, without folding in a new directory tree and git rm/mv.
> > Either way, there will be at least two modules, maybe three if we split
> > out generic subroutines.
> >
> > Enzo, you're up to your elbows in this code now, is it too ugly without
> > the new directories?
>
> Having things in separate directories and code appropriately distributed
> in coherently named headers/sources certainly makes things easier to
> work with.
>
> Of course this patch is not important, by far, but from what I
> gathered, it was some people's wish to move away from "cifs" name.
>
> Answering your question (IIUC), Tom, I'm ok with postponing this change.
>
>
Cool. I'm not even really opposed to moving the directory to a new one,
but I think a change of that magnitude ought to have some clear
technical benefit. Maybe it'll look more palatable once the breakup into
multiple modules is in place.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
