Not trying to ignore the whitespace patch, but I expect it to require h=
and
merging against current code due to the changes in the cifs bk tree (an=
d
therefore the version in mm) which hit overlapping places in a few of t=
he
same files. Quite a bit of minor changes had gone into the cifs tree =
to
eliminate sparse warnings (the last update of sparse flags static funct=
ions
differently) - and 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 are a little harder to patch again=
st.
This will be a lot easier when I push the next set of changes to mainli=
ne.

FYI - Just got back from connectathon testing of the cifs client agains=
t
various servers - generally went well but found out I have more reasons=
to
require new code in SetPathInfo for falling back to smaller infolevels =
for
time setting (not just for NT4 server now but it turns out it is also
needed for one current server) - but I found an easier way to do that w=
hich
is good news. Also found out a more workable way to get to the user s=
pace
for dfs implicit "automount-like" referral processing.

We also reached agreement on an approach for posix locking from cifs cl=
ient
to Samba which is quite promising.

Steve French
Senior Software Engineer
Linux Technology Center - IBM Austin
phone: 512-838-2294
email: sfrench at-sign us dot ibm dot com=