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: <20773.1158934671@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:17:51 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel 
	<joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, 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 

Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de> wrote:

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

Actually, what the patch itself changes doesn't differ significantly - the
difference is in the patch context.

> >  	bool "Provide AFS client caching support"
>                                                  (EXPERIMENTAL) ?

Well, AFS_FS is itself marked as being experimental, so I'm not sure that the
AFS_FSCACHE option needs to be also.

David
-
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/