Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Can you put this two into a single ifdef block? I suppose it could make sense to move the two disk random source functions together. > > config USB_STORAGE > > tristate "USB Mass Storage support" > > - depends on USB > > + depends on USB && BLOCK > > ditto. ditto? > again, try to reorder things here to only require a single ifdef block > (or rather two, a second one for the array entries) if possible. The problem with reordering things is that it makes the patch bigger, and that makes people complain about not minimalising the changes. > Can we put this into some other file under #ifndef CONFIG_BLOCK to > avoid the separate file and makefile ugliness? *blink* What've you done with the real Christoph Hellwig? You're actually *advocating* the use of a cpp-conditional in a .c file! It doesn't really belong in any of the files that are left. > No one should include this file unless block device support is enabled, > so I don't see the point for the ifdefs. Ditto for many other header > files you touch that don't contain any stubs for generic code. Someone did. Might've been USB storage now that I think about it. > And btw, shouldn't the option be CONFIG_BLK_DEV instead of CONFIG_BLOCK > to fit the variour CONFIG_BLK_DEV_FOO options we have? No. I'm not enabling a specific block device driver. I'm taking out the entire block layer, block drivers, block scheduler and everything that depends on it (such as SCSI). David - 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
