On Friday 2008-05-16 16:32, hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >+ >+if AUFS >+config AUFS_FAKE_DM >+ bool >+ depends on AUFS >+ default n When you have "if AUFS" you do not need all the "depends on AUFS". >+config AUFS_ROBR >+ bool "Aufs as an readonly branch of another aufs" >+ depends on AUFS >+ default n >+ help >+ If you want make your aufs to be a part of another aufs, then >+ enable this option. In other words, you can specify your aufs >+ path in 'br:' mount option for another aufs, but cannot >+ specify 'rw' as the branch permission. >+ It will damage the performance. >+ See detail in aufs.5. IIRC, unionfs did not need such an option, so why does AUFS? >+config AUFS_DLGT >+ bool "Delegate the internal branch access the kernel thread" >+ depends on AUFS >+ default n I do not think you need "default n" either as that should be the implicit default. >+config AUFS_SPLICE_PATCH >+ bool >+ depends on AUFS >+ default y This should just go away if it is always selected anyway. >+config AUFS_BR_NFS >+ bool >+ depends on AUFS >+ depends on NFS_FS >+ depends on !AUFS_FAKE_DM >+ default n if (!AUFS_LHASH_PATCH || AUFS_FAKE_DM) >+ default y One AUFS_FAKE_DM is redundant here. It should probably be just depends on NFS_FS && !AUFS_FAKE_DM && AUFS_LHASH_PATCH >+config AUFS_BR_XFS >+ bool >+ depends on AUFS >+ depends on XFS_FS >+ default y Same here, just depends on XFS_FS. >+config AUFS_WORKAROUND_FUSE >+ bool "Special handling for FUSE-based filesystem" >+ depends on AUFS && FUSE_FS >+ default n >+ help >+ A FUSE-based filesystem may not initialize its inode >+ attributes and the FUSE developer thinks the inode attributes >+ in a positive dentry which is returned by VFS lookup operation >+ are not reliable. >+ If you use a FUSE-based filesystem as an aufs branch, and it >+ customizes the inode attribute on it without overriding >+ fuse_lowlevel_ops.lookup, probably you need to enable this >+ configuration. >+ If you enable this configuration, aufs calls getattr operation >+ in every lookup and revalidate operation for the FUSE-based >+ filesystem branch. >+ It will damage the performance even if you don't use a >+ FUSE-based filesystem branch. Performance is not "damaged" but "hurt" :-) [or just "will negatively impact performance"] >+config AUFS_MAGIC_SYSRQ >+ bool >+ depends on AUFS >+ depends on AUFS_DEBUG >+ depends on MAGIC_SYSRQ >+ default y Since I see this for the first time, a bit of help text would not be bad, even if it is not visible in menuconfig. >+config AUFS_COMPAT >+ bool "Compatibility with Unionfs (obsolete)" If it is obsolete, it should not be merged. -- 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
