[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130117112030.6fa36b08cdf227c8c6e6f7b3@lavabit.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:20:30 -0800
From: rh <richard_hubbe11@...abit.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 76/86] fs/btrfs: remove depends on CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:54:08 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> The CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL config item has not carried much meaning for a
> while now and is almost always enabled by default. As agreed during
> the Linux kernel summit, remove it from any "depends on" lines in
> Kconfigs.
>
> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/Kconfig | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig
> index d33f01c..ccd25ba 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig
> @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
> config BTRFS_FS
> - tristate "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk
> format"
> - depends on EXPERIMENTAL
> + tristate "Btrfs filesystem Unstable disk format"
No longer an experiment but still "Unstable". But is it broken?
Or is it staging or a pet?
>From my naive point of view it seems like this set of patches is
unleashing a bunch of bad stuff onto anyone that actually sets
CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL "n". But I guess it's supposed to get caught in
linux-next.
> select LIBCRC32C
> select ZLIB_INFLATE
> select ZLIB_DEFLATE
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
--
--
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