[linux-cifs-client] Re: [2.6.27 patch] the scheduled smbfs removal

[Jeff Layton]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:53:41 -0300
"D G Teed" <donald.teed at gmail.com> wrote:

> I suggest all of the development efforts that would go into
> retiring smbfs be diverted into fixing cifs.  Why the big hurry
> to depreciate when cifs has growing pains which I cannot
> reproduce with smbfs?
> 
> smbfs could be a solution for someone.
> 

Because there's no maintainer for smbfs, and it needs one. Things in
the core kernel change and someone has to fix smbfs to keep up with
those changes, even if smbfs itself is developmentally dead. Quite a few
people seem to be complaining about it leaving the kernel, but no one
wants to be the maintainer.

It's not like the code won't exist after it's removed from the kernel.
If it's important to someone then that person is certainly welcome to
maintain it just like any other out-of-tree filesystem. If you or
someone else wants to step up as maintainer in the near future then you
can probably talk Andrew out of removing it from the kernel.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com>