linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Ext4: Don't ask about supporting ext2/3 in ext4 if ext4 is not 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912141007410.26135@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:10:22 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ext4: Don't ask about supporting ext2/3 in ext4 if ext4
 is not configured

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, David Howells wrote:
>  config EXT4_USE_FOR_EXT23
>  	bool "Use ext4 for ext2/ext3 file systems"
> -	depends on EXT3_FS=n || EXT2_FS=n
> +	depends on EXT4_FS && (EXT3_FS=n || EXT2_FS=n)

Side note: I think we should actively avoid complex config dependency 
expressions.

The above can be written with simpler expressions by just splitting it in 
two, and I think it makes it more readable:

	depends on EXT4_FS
	depends on EXT3_FS=n || EXT2_FS=n

since the two expressions are logically totally unrelated: one is just the 
obvious "this kconfig doesn't make sense without ext4" thing that was 
missing before, and the other is a totally unrelated "if you already have 
selected ext2 and ext3, then you clearly don't want ext4 to deal with 
them".

			Linus
--
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/