On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:26:19 -0500 Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:> > > Maybe you misunderstand me. > > > > The struct is *exactly the same* aside from a few small differences. It > > doesn't even need to be a union, IMO. That would let you use a lot of > > the same code in transport.c for smb2. > > I don't mind trying to condense it to one structure, but it is not that > simple: > - smb2 doesn't need or sequence number, and the two transact2 > multiresponse booleans > - cifs mid will grow by at least 10 bytes by expanding the mid, pid > etc. to the required minimum sizes. > - cifs mid doesn't need "async_response_received" or (that is an smb2 > only feature and that or equivalent is required). When we add chained > commands (common in smb2) then complex_mid or equivalent as well as > the command list, the number of the commands received and the last > response time of entries will be useless to cifs. > Is it better to add an entirely new set of functions simply because you'll have some unused fields in this structure in either case? I don't think so. -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
