On 05/17/2018 11:09 PM, Ian Kent wrote: > 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 Hi. Is there a typo on the line above? > 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. Sounds good. thanks, -- ~Randy
