New maintainer needed for the Linux smb filesystem

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Adrian Bunk

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 10:40:08 AM8/21/05
to
Since Urban Widmark was not active for some time, and I didn't have any
success trying to reach him, it seems we need a new maintainer for the
smb filesystem in the Linux kernel.

Is there anyone who both feels qualified and wants to become the new
maintainer?

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Andi Kleen

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 5:00:20 PM8/21/05
to
Adrian Bunk <bu...@stusta.de> writes:

> Since Urban Widmark was not active for some time, and I didn't have any
> success trying to reach him, it seems we need a new maintainer for the
> smb filesystem in the Linux kernel.
>
> Is there anyone who both feels qualified and wants to become the new
> maintainer?

One way would be to just deprecate and later drop it and let people
use cifs instead which is maintained. It only doesn't work with
some extremly old smb servers which are probably not very numerous
anymore.

-Andi

Andrew Morton

unread,
Aug 21, 2005, 5:10:03 PM8/21/05
to
Adrian Bunk <bu...@stusta.de> wrote:
>
> Since Urban Widmark was not active for some time, and I didn't have any
> success trying to reach him, it seems we need a new maintainer for the
> smb filesystem in the Linux kernel.
>
> Is there anyone who both feels qualified and wants to become the new
> maintainer?
>

Yes, it's a poor situation. That driver seems to have quite a few problems.

I was hoping that by now we could simply deprecate smbfs and tell people to
use CIFS, but I'm not sure that CIFS is ready for that yet.

Steve, what's your take? Does CIFS offer a 100% superset of smbfs
capabilities?

Thanks.

Steven Rostedt

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 7:20:11 PM8/22/05
to
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 22:26 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bu...@stusta.de> writes:
>
> > Since Urban Widmark was not active for some time, and I didn't have any
> > success trying to reach him, it seems we need a new maintainer for the
> > smb filesystem in the Linux kernel.
> >
> > Is there anyone who both feels qualified and wants to become the new
> > maintainer?
>
> One way would be to just deprecate and later drop it and let people
> use cifs instead which is maintained. It only doesn't work with
> some extremly old smb servers which are probably not very numerous
> anymore.

Or you could deprecate it and later drop it and when people complain,
you just found your new maintainer :-)

-- Steve

Ian Kent

unread,
Aug 23, 2005, 8:50:09 PM8/23/05
to
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> >
> >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>Steven French wrote:
> >>|
> >>| We are close, but not quite ready to disable smbfs.
> >>
> >>Steve,
> >>
> >>I have been itching to work on some kernel code.
> >>If you need someone just to keep things afloat,
> >>I'd been happy to look into it. There would be some
> >>start up time of course. If you would be willing to
> >>help me navigate the things other than code, it
> >>shouldn't be that big of a deal.
> >
> > I wouldn't mind helping out here either. Perhaps a joint
> > effort Jerry?
>
> That's fine by me.
>
> Steve, I'll touch base with on #samba-technical to work out
> what to do first. I know we have had a lot of reports
> on https://bugzilla.samba.org/ that were originally closed
> as invalid since were weren't supporting the kernel smbfs code
> at that time.

Just spin me round and stop me when I'm pointing in the right direction!

I'll see if I can find anything in the kernel bugzilla.

Ian

Steve French

unread,
Aug 23, 2005, 11:50:08 PM8/23/05
to
OK - good progress on filling the requirement for Windows ME/9x support
which seems to be the most common reason for still needing smbfs based
on various email responses on this thread (if we can get this work
finished up fast, it will avoid some double maintainence).

CIFS (in the cifs.git tree) can now handle not just mounts to Windows ME
(and probably Windows 9x), but readdir and enough of lookup. Finishing
up the remainder should go fast (OpenX instead of NTCreateX is the main
piece left).

Of course finding Windows 95, Windows 98, and OS/2 servers is a little
harder than it sounds...although scripting a subset of the functional
tests that should work should be pretty easy.

I will also put a version of the source that will compile at least as
far back as 2.6.9 up on the project page within a few days.

Hal Wigoda

unread,
Aug 24, 2005, 12:20:06 AM8/24/05
to
is a maintainer still needed?
and if so, what are the qualifications?
hal wigoda
chicago
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages