[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080804182532.GF25940@fieldses.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:25:32 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org,
michael@...e-electrons.com, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
matthew@....cx, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] Configure out file locking features
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:24:51AM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> >> Le Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:38:48 -0400,
> >> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Out of curiosity, why does the nfs client need disabling, but not
> >>> nfsd, gfs2, fuse, etc.?
> >> Then also need disabling.
> >
> > OK by me, but again, why exactly? Since you're replacing the locking
> > calls they used by stubs that just return errors, in theory nfs, nfsd,
> > gfs2, and the rest should still compile and run, just without locking
> > support, right?
>
> I think so, but haven't tested this myself.
>
> However, I would still be inclined to NOT add the extra config
> dependencies. Just my 2 cents.
OK. My fear was that there was some good reason that the nfs dependency
was added in the first place, and that it's since been lost....
--b.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists