Linux kernel 2.6 smbfs bugs

[Michael B Allen]

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:13:37PM -0500, Michael B Allen wrote:
>> > It doesn't look like these would fail against the cifs vfs, but smbfs still
>> > shouldn't oops even it won't be long before smbfs is replaced by cifs vfs
>> > for all but a few legacy scenarios.
>>
>> Mmm, I hope smbfs sticks around for a few more years though. I don't think most
>> Linux people care if MS has EOL'd their operating systems. Personally I plan on
>> using NT and 98 for some time. Unless cifsvfs supports everything smbfs does I
>> don't see how it can be removed.
>
> I have to agree with Mike on this one.  I understand that limiting the
> scope of CIFS VFS server support makes the code simpler.  At the same
> time, NT and Win9x all speak the "NT LM 0.12" dialect.  I think that a
> single dialect is a reasonable quanta.

The way to go is for cifsvfs to just support "legacy" systems. Otherwise I really
don't see smbfs going away *ever*. It's exactly the kind of thing someone would
expect from Linux. The NetBIOS stuff isn't *that* bad. In fact jCIFS is really
good at client side NetBIOS with how it figures out a good called name with
whatever it's given, resolves names and so on (thanks to Chris). So the methods
are worked out and accessable. The only tricky part is that you have to do some
extra asyncronous operations. Note also, you don't really have to follow the RFC
1002 flow control.

Mike

-- 
A program should be written to  model the concepts of the task it
performs rather than the physical world or a process because this
maximizes the  potential for it  to be applied  to tasks that are
conceptually similar and, more  important, to tasks that have not
yet been conceived.