On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:58:22 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/08/2010 08:33 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > This is the second version of this patchset. The changes since the last > > set are: > > > > 1) The patch to remove "/proc/fs/cifs/Experimental" did not remove the > > deregistration of that file, which caused a warning on rmmod. > > > > 2) The patch to remove "/proc/fs/cifs/Experimental" now adds a new > > module parameter so that people relying on it to allow zero-copy > > writes with signing have a way to continue using that. > > > > A modified description of the set follows... > > > > The CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL KConfig option is the sort of thing that > > gives distro packagers nightmares. The things that live under it are > > impossible to predict for someone who isn't following development > > upstream. > > In general, I like the overall idea of removing heavily overloaded > CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL config option. It's true that it was at times hard to > narrow down suspect once this option is enabled. > > However, the dependency of a few options on EXPERIMENTAL (fscache and > acl) is not removed. CIFS_FSCACHE can be marked as not dependent on > EXPERIMENTAL. Not sure about CIFS_ACL though. > > Can you make this patchset or a subsequent patch accomodates this change > too? > > There's a difference between CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL and CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL. Those options depend on the latter. I'm removing the former. I think it's still appropriate to mark these new features as EXPERIMENTAL and to leave them dependent on CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL. Note, that I don't necessarily think we must leave these features tagged CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL just that if we want to remove those labels, we should do that in the context of a separate discussion... -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
