Hi, On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 23:01 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/fs/gfs2/Makefile > > @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ > > +obj-$(CONFIG_GFS2_FS) += gfs2.o > > +gfs2-y := \ > > + acl.o \ > > + bits.o \ > > + bmap.o \ > > + daemon.o \ > ... > + trans.o \ > > + unlinked.o \ > > + util.o > A fewer number of lines please. > gfs2-y := acl.o bits.o bmap.o > ... > gfs2-y += trans.o unlinked.o util.o > I've made it a fewer number of lines now: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/steve/gfs2-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=b5ea3e1ef307548bdd40fff6aba5fc96b002f284 > > > + > > +obj-$(CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_NOLOCK) += locking/nolock/ > > +obj-$(CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM) += locking/dlm/ > Can we get rid f the locking sub-directory - maybe like this: > +obj-$(CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_NOLOCK) += no-lock/ > +obj-$(CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM += dlm-lock/ > > Sam I'd rather keep the subdirectory if there are no strong objections to it. Its quite likely that as time goes on, GFS will gather both further locking modules and even other non-locking related modules which would fit more naturally as subdirectories of fs/gfs2 directly, Steve. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
