On 18/05/18 12:38, Ian Kent wrote: > On 18/05/18 12:23, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/17/2018 08:50 PM, Ian Kent wrote: >>> On 18/05/18 08:21, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>> On 05/17/2018 04:26 PM, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>> The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2018-05-17-16-26 has been uploaded to >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/ >>>>> >>>>> mmotm-readme.txt says >>>>> >>>>> README for mm-of-the-moment: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/ >>>>> >>>>> This is a snapshot of my -mm patch queue. Uploaded at random hopefully >>>>> more than once a week. >>>>> >>>>> You will need quilt to apply these patches to the latest Linus release (4.x >>>>> or 4.x-rcY). The series file is in broken-out.tar.gz and is duplicated in >>>>> http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/series >>>>> >>>>> The file broken-out.tar.gz contains two datestamp files: .DATE and >>>>> .DATE-yyyy-mm-dd-hh-mm-ss. Both contain the string yyyy-mm-dd-hh-mm-ss, >>>>> followed by the base kernel version against which this patch series is to >>>>> be applied. >>>>> >>>>> This tree is partially included in linux-next. To see which patches are >>>>> included in linux-next, consult the `series' file. Only the patches >>>>> within the #NEXT_PATCHES_START/#NEXT_PATCHES_END markers are included in >>>>> linux-next. >>>>> >>>>> A git tree which contains the memory management portion of this tree is >>>>> maintained at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git >>>>> by Michal Hocko. It contains the patches which are between the >>>>> "#NEXT_PATCHES_START mm" and "#NEXT_PATCHES_END" markers, from the series >>>>> file, http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/series. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A full copy of the full kernel tree with the linux-next and mmotm patches >>>>> already applied is available through git within an hour of the mmotm >>>>> release. Individual mmotm releases are tagged. The master branch always >>>>> points to the latest release, so it's constantly rebasing. >>>> >>>> >>>> on x86_64: with (randconfig): >>>> CONFIG_AUTOFS_FS=y >>>> CONFIG_AUTOFS4_FS=y >>> >>> Oh right, I need to make these exclusive. >>> >>> I seem to remember trying to do that along the way, can't remember why >>> I didn't do it in the end. >>> >>> Any suggestions about potential problems when doing it? >> >> I think that just using "depends on" for each of them will cause kconfig to >> complain about circular dependencies, so probably using "choice" will be >> needed. Or (since this is just temporary?) just say "don't do that." >> > > No doubt that was what happened, unfortunately I forgot to return to it. > > Right, a conditional with a message should work .... thanks. It looks like adding: depends on AUTOFS_FS = n && AUTOFS_FS != m to autofs4/Kconfig results in autofs4 appearing under the autofs entry if AUTOFS_FS is not set which should call attention to it. It also results in AUTOFS4_FS=n for any setting of AUTOFS_FS except n. Together with some words about it in the AUTOFS4_FS help it should be enough to raise awareness of the change. Ian
