LFS support for smbfs in 2.5, and other improvements

LFS support for smbfs in 2.5, and other improvements

[Mike Fedyk]

Hi,

I noticed that LFS support has made it into 2.5, but it's not on the status
list (http://kernelnewbies.org/status/latest.html).

IIRC there were some plans to add oplock support to smbfs (newbie alert:
linux smb client, oplocks are already in samba server).  Maybe that should
be tracked on the status too.

Mike

Re: LFS support for smbfs in 2.5, and other improvements

[Urban Widmark]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I noticed that LFS support has made it into 2.5, but it's not on the status
> list (http://kernelnewbies.org/status/latest.html).
> 
> IIRC there were some plans to add oplock support to smbfs (newbie alert:
> linux smb client, oplocks are already in samba server).  Maybe that should
> be tracked on the status too.

Using the terminology from the status page I guess this could be the smbfs
list:

Alpha		smbfs: I/O rewrite, smbiod
Alpha		smbfs: Fcntl locking + smb oplock support
Alpha		smbfs: smbconnect for better fstab integration
Planning	smbfs: Readahead support (async readpage/writepage)
Planning	smbfs: Read/Write request merging

But won't the list become very long if every little driver included all
the planned changes? Not my problem I guess ...

Also I don't know if any of this will be ready to be merged within the 6
month limit mentioned in one of the early announcements.


Regarding the updated statuspage, it isn't the "Samba filesystem", it is
the SMB filesystem (usually smbfs, SMBFS, SMBfs and possibly other
variations).

/Urban

Re: LFS support for smbfs in 2.5, and other improvements

[Guillaume Boissiere]

> Using the terminology from the status page I guess this could be the smbfs
> list:
> 
> Alpha		smbfs: I/O rewrite, smbiod
> Alpha		smbfs: Fcntl locking + smb oplock support
> Alpha		smbfs: smbconnect for better fstab integration
> Planning	smbfs: Readahead support (async readpage/writepage)
> Planning	smbfs: Read/Write request merging
> 
> But won't the list become very long if every little driver included all
> the planned changes? Not my problem I guess ...

Yes, I am trying to limit the status list to the big items so that it 
stays readable for people.

> Also I don't know if any of this will be ready to be merged within the 6
> month limit mentioned in one of the early announcements.

Why don't we do this, if there is anything that gets close to inclusion 
and you feel it is a big thing lots of people have been anxiously waiting
for, let me know and I'll put it in.

> Regarding the updated statuspage, it isn't the "Samba filesystem", it is
> the SMB filesystem (usually smbfs, SMBFS, SMBfs and possibly other
> variations).

Fixed, thanks.

-- Guillaume

Re: LFS support for smbfs in 2.5, and other improvements

[Guillaume Boissiere]

> I noticed that LFS support has made it into 2.5, but it's not on the status
> list (http://kernelnewbies.org/status/latest.html).

If it's useful for a lot of people, yes, it makes sense to put it there.
So I just added it to the latest update on the Web site (URL above).
 
> IIRC there were some plans to add oplock support to smbfs (newbie alert:
> linux smb client, oplocks are already in samba server).  Maybe that should
> be tracked on the status too.

If someone can provide me with a status for this, I'll add it as well.
Cheers,

-- Guillaume