[2.6 patch] remove smbfs

[Jeff Layton]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:58:10 +0200
Adrian Bunk <bunk at kernel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
> > Guenter Kukkukk <linux at kukkukk.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Am Montag, 28. Januar 2008 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> > > > I remember that there were some small things missing in CIFS
> > > > for completely replacing the unmaintained smbfs when we
> > > > discussed removing smbfs back in 2005 due to smbfs being
> > > > unmaintained.
> > > > 
> > > > CIFS has improved since, smbfs is still unmaintained, and it's
> > > > becoming time to finally remove smbfs.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk at kernel.org>
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > "... unmaintained smbfs ..." is not quite right, see
> > >    http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/6/94
> > > Before removing it now completely, drop
> > >   Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com>
> > > a note.
> > > Afaik, Redhat still has customers which rely on smbfs.
> > > 
> > 
> > Some of our older products use smbfs, but our newer stuff (RHEL5 and
> > up) have smbfs disabled. Fedora has had smbfs disabled for quite
> > some time as well. I've heard very few complaints (though maybe
> > they're just not getting to me).
> > 
> > I have no problem with targeting smbfs for removal, but I thought
> > Andrew had an unofficial policy that we should first mark things to
> > be deprecated, and then remove them 2 releases later. That seems
> > like a sensible policy to me. If we mark it deprecated in 2.6.25
> > then we can remove it after 2.6.26 is released.
> > 
> > It might not even hurt to have a nice loud printk when the smbfs
> > module is plugged in to warn users that it's slated to be removed,
> > and that they should move to CIFS as soon as possible.
> 
> Andrew has this with a target date of December 2006 (sic) for the 
> removal buried in -mm...
> 

True, but most users don't run -mm. I think we should have this marked
as deprecated in mainline kernels before removing it. I rather like the
idea of a runtime warning too...

smbfs has the unfortunate quality of momentum. A lot of users aren't
aware of CIFS at all since smbfs basically does what they need it to
do. Some extra warning for those users would be nice.

> > > In addition, cifs cannot completely replace smbfs atm.
> > > Even todays sold NAS-boxes (often running anchient 
> > > samba-2.x.x) work only with smbfs on the client side.
> > 
> > It would be ideal if someone were to report these problems as bugs.
> > I remember some of those in the past, but haven't heard of any
> > cases of that sort of thing for some time. When I have, Steve has
> > generally been very good about tracking down the cause and fixing
> > it.
> 
> More exactly, one of the main advantages of removing redundant code
> like smbfs is that people are finally forced to report their bugs.
> 

Indeed. I'm all for removing it, but I think we should try to have a
clear transition path to avoid some of the "WTF happened to smbfs?"
emails we're bound to get. Marking it deprecated in mainline and
stating that it'll be removed in version 2.6.26 (or whenever) seems like
a reasonable thing to do.

Just my $.02...

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com>