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]

Message-ID: <20081211115844.1b1dbf49@hyperion.delvare>
Date:	Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:58:44 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency

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 :)

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/