On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:33:50PM +1000, Leif Sahlberg wrote: > > Understood. > In that case, what are your thoughts about renaming the current client > fs/cifs tree to fs/smb ? If it was newly added I'd be all in favor. Renaming an existing codebase is rather painful, though. So I'd rather live with the historic misnaming (and think of the historic smbfs predating the current cifs driver :))
