linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:08:39 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Cc:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency

On Thu, Dec 11 2008, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:41:10 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 11 2008, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Configuration option LSF has a default which contradicts its help
> > > text. The help text says "if unsure, say Y" but there is no explicit
> > > default, and the default default is N.
> > > 
> > > This inconsistency was introduced by commit
> > > 88b9adb073b7a69a54b1b14423103bc24587ebdc. According to the commit
> > > message, we want users to enable this option, so it should default to
> > > Y.
> > 
> > I wonder if we just shouldn't get rid of this option and just have the
> > single CONFIG_LBD option control both of these. If you set CONFIG_LBD,
> > you probably want large files as well. And CONFIG_LSF without CONFIG_LBD
> > doesn't make a lot of sense.
> > 
> > Would anyone object to such a change?
> 
> No objection from me, getting rid of configuration options almost
> always gets my vote :)

Yeah, mine too. One recent addition was CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU - why on
earth is that an option?!

Anyway, how about something like this? Totally untested...

diff --git a/block/Kconfig b/block/Kconfig
index 1ab7c15..ce566dd 100644
--- a/block/Kconfig
+++ b/block/Kconfig
@@ -24,21 +24,18 @@ menuconfig BLOCK
 if BLOCK
 
 config LBD
-	bool "Support for Large Block Devices"
+	bool "Support for Large Block Devices and files"
 	depends on !64BIT
+	select LSF
 	help
-	  Enable block devices of size 2TB and larger.
+	  Enable block devices or files of size 2TB and larger.
 
 	  This option is required to support the full capacity of large
 	  (2TB+) block devices, including RAID, disk, Network Block Device,
 	  Logical Volume Manager (LVM) and loopback.
-
-	  For example, RAID devices are frequently bigger than the capacity
-	  of the largest individual hard drive.
-
-	  This option is not required if you have individual disk drives
-	  which total 2TB+ and you are not aggregating the capacity into
-	  a large block device (e.g. using RAID or LVM).
+	
+	  This option also enables support for single files larger than
+	  2TB.
 
 	  If unsure, say N.
 
@@ -57,15 +54,6 @@ config BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE
 
 	  If unsure, say N.
 
-config LSF
-	bool "Support for Large Single Files"
-	depends on !64BIT
-	help
-	  Say Y here if you want to be able to handle very large files (2TB
-	  and larger), otherwise say N.
-
-	  If unsure, say Y.
-
 config BLK_DEV_BSG
 	bool "Block layer SG support v4 (EXPERIMENTAL)"
 	depends on EXPERIMENTAL

-- 
Jens Axboe

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