linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] AFS: Manage AFS modularity vs FS-Cache modularity

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]

Message-ID: <20060922123105.GA3767@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:31:05 +0200
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, evil@...ouse.de, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] AFS: Manage AFS modularity vs FS-Cache modularity

On Fri, 22 September 2006 12:11:40 +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
>  	bool "Provide AFS client caching support"
                                                 (EXPERIMENTAL) ?
> -	depends on AFS_FS && FSCACHE && EXPERIMENTAL
>  	  Say Y here if you want AFS data to be cached locally on through the
                                                                 disk ?

At least I cannot see why the AFS patch differs from the NFS one in
those two details.

Jörn

-- 
More computing sins are committed in the name of efficiency (without
necessarily achieving it) than for any other single reason - including
blind stupidity.
-- W. A. Wulf
-
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/