RE: [PATCH v2 00/10] cifsd: introduce new SMB3 kernel server

[Namjae Jeon]

> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 12:24:17AM +0200, Aurélien Aptel wrote:
> > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > I'd rather see multiple patches that were actually functional at
> > > each
> > > stage: e.g., start with a server that responds to some sort of
> > > rpc-level ping but does nothing else, then add basic file IO, etc.
> > >
> > > I don't know if that's practical.
> >
> > Although it would certainly be nice I don't think it's realistic to
> > expect this kind of retro-logical-rewriting. AFAIK the other new
> > fs-related addition (ntfs patchset) is using the same trick of adding
> > the Makefile at the end after it was suggested on the mailing list. So
> > there's a precedent.
> 
> OK, I wondered if that might be the case.
> 
> I don't love it, but, fair enough, maybe that's the best compromise.
Thank you for your understanding. One big patch seems to be unable to review
because the code seem to be cut off in the mail. So it does not exceed 300KB
per patch. So we split patches out by layer and added Makefile, Kconfig
at the end.

Thanks!

> 
> --b.