Nick Dokos writes: > No, I am not seeing them any more Good! > So it seems to be entirely caused by my bad choice of a config file. I don't see anything wrong with what you did. > As a matter of good practice, is defconfig+ext4dev the best way of > producing a kernel for ext4 testing purposes? No, I don't think so. I have used it because this is reasonably fast to compile. I don't think there is a best single .config for testing ext4 (but let's see what other think). Using .config from distributions is fine since it is the way some users get ext4 (that's why I tested Fedora 9 too). Using other ways is also fine since it increases testing coverage. > Are there any settings > that should be added/delete/modified from the default? Yes, for example, defconfig lacks options from the "Kernel Hacking" section for testability which are mentionned e.g. in Documentation/SubmitChecklist. -- solofo -- 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
