Re: [PATCH 06/11] CIFS: Respect MaxMpxCount field

[Jeremy Allison <jra-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 03:05:39PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 02:14 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 01:04:29PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> >>
> >>The folks at Microsoft (who are, of course, well ahead in their
> >>SMB2.x implementations) are very surprised that we are trying to
> >>maintain a single codebase for both protocols.  (I heard the same
> >>thing from several Microsoft engineers during separate
> >>conversations.)
> >
> >That's just a misunderstanding of how our codebase is
> >structured, that's all.
> >
> >The SMB1 parser/protocol engine is completely different code from the SMB2
> >parser/protocol engine in Samba.
> 
> I was thinking of the CIFS client, which is what Jeff was talking about.

Then I am confused, sorry :-).

> Keep in mind, though, that SMB1 is dead and will never make use of
> things like durable, resilient, and persistent handles.  It will
> also never fully expose the semantics of ReFS.  Similarly, SMB2 will
> never need to worry about presenting DOS and OS/2 as SMB1 does.
> 
> So some of the semantics that file system mapping layer has to
> handle are going to be purely for one protocol or the other.  The
> biggest part of the overlap there will be NTFS semantics... which
> is, admittedly, the lions share of the market now and for some time
> to come.

So what we'll end up doing is migrating the layer to SMB2
semantics and then mapping the old SMB1 semantics into a
layer that goes on top (it's like one of those topological
tricks of turning a sphere inside out :-).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVVfs4zKrgk

We did it before when migrating from DOS semantics to
NT semantics.

Jeremy.