Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-31,: Re: SMBFS: Question...

# Re: SMBFS: Question...

Bill Hawes (whawes@transmeta.com)
Mon, 03 Aug 1998 13:08:24 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Linux version 2.1.113"
- Previous message: Doug Ledford: "Re: Data corruption using 2940U"
- Maybe in reply to: Shawn Leas: "SMBFS: Question..."
- Next in thread: Brion Vibber: "Re: SMBFS: Question..."

Pal-Kristian Engstad wrote:

> Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > The command syntax changed in a way that makes a royal muck-up of
> > the kernel automount. The fix to autofs is ugly at best (the new smbmount
> > has several of the old parameters rolled into a single string parameter
> > making it a royal pain to change the code) and would break backward
> > compatibility in any case. As far as making sense goes... The change
> > in syntax which totally hoses backward compatibility goes totally contrary
> > to "making sense" no matter which way you shake it. You break programs
> > and scripts and can't switch back and forth like many of us like to do.
>
> True. I don't know why they did this. It seems to be two points of
> concern.
>
> 1. Avoiding kernel bloat by putting the connection protocol outside the
> kernel.
>
> 2. "Fixing" the problem occuring when the connection is timed out or
> lost.
> When this happens, the user program receives a signal and it will try
> to reconnect.

The work needed to negotiate and maintain an SMB connection is fairly complex
and is already well handled by the samba package. It doesn't make sense to
duplicate this in the kernel, both from the standpoint of kernel bloat and
extra maintenance.

> I'd really like to see things straighten up. As the original coder of
> smbfs,
> I strongly reject and disapprove recent work by Volker Lendecke and
> Andrew
> Tridgell. What has been done is architectually unsound and will only
> lead to
> (user) problems. I do not think smbmount should be included in the Samba
> package. It should be in the mount package.

I agree that the smbmount package needs some more work, but there's no point in
blaming the samba team for decisions made with regard to smbfs. The mount
utility could be easily extended to call the smbmount program with the
appropriate arguments, making the mount seamless from the user's standpoint.

Regards,
Bill

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

- Next message: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Linux version 2.1.113"
- Previous message: Doug Ledford: "Re: Data corruption using 2940U"
- Maybe in reply to: Shawn Leas: "SMBFS: Question..."
- Next in thread: Brion Vibber: "Re: SMBFS: Question..."