linux-kernel - Re: mmc core broken dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK (Was: linux-next: Tree for Oct 11 (mmc))

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: <CAKYAXd_MJy_3TAoM_buCmP5g3j1e=Vh5vZPJP9O_nxDrWiHsAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:16:51 +0900
From:	NamJae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To:	Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin@...are.com>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: Re: mmc core broken dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK (Was: linux-next: Tree
 for Oct 11 (mmc))

2011/10/12 Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin@...are.com>:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "NamJae Jeon" <linkinjeon@...il.com>
>> To: "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>, "Andrei Warkentin" <awarkentin@...are.com>
>> Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, "LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, "Chris Ball"
>> <cjb@...top.org>, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:20:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: mmc core broken dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK (Was: linux-next: Tree for Oct 11 (mmc))
>>
>> Hi Randy, Andrei.
>>
>> I suggest third option for this.
>> As you know, MMC like ATA Driver and SCSI Driver etc.. can not enable
>> without CONFIG_BLOCK
>> So I think that mmc should be depended from CONFIG_BLOCK like other
>> block device driver.
>> see the their Kconfig. How do you think ?
>
> MMC core doesn't not imply MMC_BLOCK. You could well use SDIO devices via MMC without any flash storage whatsoever.
> What I want to say is that MMC_BLOCK already depends on BLOCK. MMC, however, has no such functional dependence, as it
> just (effectively) provides bus and device enumeration. So I think the better solution is wrapping all MMC partition
> code within mmc/core/mmc.c and card.h with CONFIG_BLOCK.
yes, you're right, I found it after sending mail. If so, should I wrap
CONFIG_MMC_BLOCK instead of CONFIG_MMC ? After I add CONFIG_MMC_BLOCK
in core/mmc.c, card.h, I can see compile is okay.
Thanks.
>
> A
>
--
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/