linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging/lustre: add BLOCK depends in Kconfig

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]

Date:	Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:17:46 +0000
From:	"Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>
To:	Xiong Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>, Peng Tao <bergwolf@...il.com>
CC:	Jiri Kosina <trivial@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/lustre: add BLOCK depends in Kconfig

On 2013/07/25 1:06 AM, "Xiong Zhou" <jencce.kernel@...il.com> wrote:

>From: Xiong Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>
>
>Add BLOCK depends in Kconfig for LUSTRE to fix this:
>drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fid/../include/linux/lustre_compat25.h:117:2
>: 
>error: implicit declaration of function ʽunregister_blkdevʼ
>
>Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>
>---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig |    2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig
>b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig
>index 9ae7fa8..0b45de0 100644
>--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig
>+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig
>@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> config LUSTRE_FS
> 	tristate "Lustre file system client support"
>-	depends on STAGING && INET && m
>+	depends on STAGING && INET && BLOCK && m
> 	select LNET
> 	select CRYPTO
> 	select CRYPTO_CRC32

The Lustre client does not need a block device - it is a network
filesystem.
The one piece of code that is relevant here relates to a Lustre-optimized
"loop" device that bypasses the VFS, data copying, and DLM locking for use
by swap and such.  It would be better instead to make that code conditional
and add a new CONFIG_LUSTRE_LLOOP or similar, and only make that part
dependent
on BLOCK.

Cheers, Andreas
-- 
Andreas Dilger

Lustre Software Architect
Intel High Performance Data Division