On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 09:45 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 20:35 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Mingming Cao wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 19:06 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > >> Mingming Cao wrote: > > >> > > >>> Do you intend to remove the #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS, or it's a accident? I > > >>> think we need keep that to allow ext4 build without procfs configured. > > >>> > > >>> Other than this, the patch looks fine to me.:) > > >> oh, it kind of snuck in. It actually should still build, as > > >> remove_proc_entry is a no-op function w/o the config option. > > > > > > Oh, I mean the proc_mkdir(EXT4_ROOT, proc_root_fs) will complain w/o > > > CONFIG_PROC_FS configured. > > > > > > Mingming > > > > > > > it'll build: > > > > static inline struct proc_dir_entry *proc_mkdir(const char *name, > > struct proc_dir_entry *parent) {return NULL;} > > > > yes, it'll issue a printk though. *shrug* > > printk could be removed...so as long as it builds fine. I had looked at the history yesterday and find this fix http://lists.openwall.net/linux-ext4/2007/10/10/2 so I was under impression that the ifdefs was added to fix compile issue. I did not look more closely. Maybe that's not a issue any more. > > I like fewer #ifdefs better than more, but doesn't matter much to me. > Oh, I prefer fewer #ifdefs too.:-) > It's strongly encouraged to avoid unnecessary ifdefs. (Does Christoph > read this list?) In my opinion, the decision is whether or not to just > remove the printk. > Mingming > Shaggy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html