> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
> Guenter Kukkukk <linux@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@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@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.