linux-kernel - Re: [Re: 2.6.21-rc2-mm1] #error no ROMFS backing store interface configured

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: <20070304152506.GC3441@stusta.de>
Date:	Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:25:06 +0100
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Re: 2.6.21-rc2-mm1] #error no ROMFS backing store interface configured

On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 03:11:09PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > So we require that one of these be enabled if ROMFS.
> 
> At least one, yes.  Both can be enabled.  I don't know how to do it though.

How to solve it depends on the intended semantics.

Is

CONFIG_BLOCK=y
CONFIG_ROMFS_FS=y
CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_BLOCK=n
CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_MTD=y

a reasonable configuration that should be supported, or can we turn 
CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_BLOCK always on if CONFIG_BLOCK=y?

> David

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/