[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZTtmn4o8WrU4+yHM@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 00:28:31 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exportfs: handle CONFIG_EXPORTFS=m also
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 09:11:57AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 9:01 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:46:06PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > I would much rather turn EXPORTFS into a bool config
> > > and avoid the unneeded build test matrix.
> >
> > Yes. Especially given that the defaul on open by handle syscalls
> > require it anyway.
>
> Note that those syscalls depend on CONFIG_FHANDLE and the latter
> selects EXPORTFS.
Yes, this means that for all somewhat sane configfs exportfs if always
built in anyway. And for the ones where it isn't because people
are concerned about micro-optimizing kernel size, nfsd is unlikely
to be built in either.
> The bigger issue is that so many of the filesystems that use the
> generic export ops do not select EXPORTFS, so it's easier to
> leave the generic helper in libfs.c as Arnd suggested.
Agreed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists