From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C411C432BE for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 18:06:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524756109D for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 18:06:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234218AbhHaSHt (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2021 14:07:49 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60166 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230145AbhHaSHt (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2021 14:07:49 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2FC9C061575; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id w4so125828ljh.13; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:06:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4uoFy8lFPfOaRv20kXGYEUnEgHw1OP9Lm88Uu/BMnVE=; b=u1zPg1ZS36y+OJdwnG9hcpPsMVJIN/gOuB5RL3hnCHyd5TqigUN5AO9MKcJ8QrQ57f tihJTWu7OorM/pV7Ri9OHGMxCemm2s3jyILoDdCzS07iOmhoE/ct7C9O0wn7I83AEjEa ZgRgkBc6ND/hFiHUUT1KTE6GBf/oi/1bWz533CN421bo51io3jv79cxhSj62mYDfNTVi EtsJ1O5PIz03FeNvBbwEsBgGDVAgXGgVJWGP/eGF1hfScw4y4TF2Rxn1a+KwyEwQOb84 LpqYpgqt7ZN3OD84pJHXjA6yx9/GcfT+7sJlnZ+RdmZOFFEXeXhGP2TrzPpinwoG7izs 1RXw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4uoFy8lFPfOaRv20kXGYEUnEgHw1OP9Lm88Uu/BMnVE=; b=VZt78c+RNmqkFxpSjcMIzFgb+00oRkJYqQgtJ7q/tBsyl1vV0LqwZuElkGWZgpOixm o1xR9pxMThecitlTay7ZlytENI1gtlv7eBSqE2wb2awNm4e/wuAM6pJU8zzThk6KCsLi qT3/hd7BHLdvXOrubGBF9Zn8NiRTO2CIROrkcIfrqwvuhOiDtNL1Sa93yTOnoV7LMQFs hfrHHIq+MAXq8Va+ILfTFFRjRUYYff1LmBA/pOxtjim1zazT2QJpW+DQrcCIf9Uuw6gd vsjTUfU7tk+dFUZXiC8o7oWBoWXj068rCjAJ2tnBvrUFe1nIrTJdbZmWW7xtEnufx+JI v9kg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53062wQkc0lxD8x6Ho1J9qmlCOYEWr7Zvy49KVpbk5O0tRYAn9P5 ZJCcbVSsUH7nsox/Ir+j2bSp2V5iYVvpjpKWP+yLJTfg X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwHI/awRoxhF/yFyqZlpxqd+L2fpZ9GRmrzEMOYW6p5QGXjiKG/Ums/ZeYJAQVJprqmbAFf8ykZZvNpgGthLSo= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:bb8f:: with SMTP id y15mr25733061lje.148.1630433212221; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Steve French Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 13:06:41 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] cifs/smb3 client fixes To: Linus Torvalds Cc: LKML , CIFS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:43 PM Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:09 AM Steve French wrote: > > > > So if you are ok with renaming the client dir and module > > name - we can gradually stop using the word/name "cifs" except for the > > parts of code which really are needed to access the (unfortunately > > hundreds of millions of) very old devices which require SMB1 ("CIFS"). > > 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. Given likely movement of various common server/client functions into cifs_common in the short term - we can delay renaming "fs/cifs" (and fs/cifs_common) to e.g. "fs/smbfs" to 5.16 or 5.17 > > We could even build two versions of the module "smb3.ko" which does not > > include support for the less secure legacy dialects and "cifs.ko" which does > > include it. Is there a precedent for something similar. > > I'm not sure there is precedent for that, but that's not a huge issue per se. > > 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". > > I think "smbfs" has the nice property of making it clear that this is > just the filesystem part of the smb protocols - that otherwise cover a > lot of other things too (at least historically printers, although I > have no idea how true that is any more). "smbfs" would likely be fine and I can bounce the idea around others on Samba team etc. And yes you are right, the broader "SMB family of protocols" covers a lot of other functions (from systems management, DCE/RPC, clustering, change notification, named pipes, global name space ... not just files and printers) so "smbfs" as a name for the client fs module going forward may be a bit less confusing. > So if we rename, we should rename it to something new and slightly > more specific than what we used to have. > > I'd rather have a module called "smbfs.ko" (or "smb-fs.ko" or > "smb-client.ko" etc) than "smb.ko". That should be easy enough (IIRC FreeBSD called their module "smbfs), but presumably wait until 5.16 or 5.17 to lessen merge conflicts etc. -- Thanks, Steve