On Thursday 02 January 2020 22:07:16 Namjae Jeon wrote: > >> index 98be354fdb61..2c7ea7e0a95b 100644 > >> --- a/fs/Makefile > >> +++ b/fs/Makefile > >> @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_HUGETLBFS) += hugetlbfs/ > >> obj-$(CONFIG_CODA_FS) += coda/ > >> obj-$(CONFIG_MINIX_FS) += minix/ > >> obj-$(CONFIG_FAT_FS) += fat/ > >> +obj-$(CONFIG_EXFAT) += exfat/ > >> obj-$(CONFIG_BFS_FS) += bfs/ > >> obj-$(CONFIG_ISO9660_FS) += isofs/ > >> obj-$(CONFIG_HFSPLUS_FS) += hfsplus/ # Before hfs to find wrapped HFS+ > > > > Seems that all filesystems have _FS suffix in their config names. So > > should not have exfat config also same convention? CONFIG_EXFAT_FS? > Yeah, I know, However, That name conflicts with staging/exfat. > So I subtracted _FS suffix. Maybe it is a good idea to drop conflicting implementation prior merging this series? Or at least renaming conflicting name? You already wrote that it is "random previous snaphot" which does not sounds as something we would like to use or support. -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
