On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 14:25 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:24:51AM -0700, Tim Bird wrote: > > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > >> Le Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:38:48 -0400, > > >> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > >> > > >>> Out of curiosity, why does the nfs client need disabling, but not > > >>> nfsd, gfs2, fuse, etc.? > > >> Then also need disabling. > > > > > > OK by me, but again, why exactly? Since you're replacing the locking > > > calls they used by stubs that just return errors, in theory nfs, nfsd, > > > gfs2, and the rest should still compile and run, just without locking > > > support, right? > > > > I think so, but haven't tested this myself. > > > > However, I would still be inclined to NOT add the extra config > > dependencies. Just my 2 cents. > > OK. My fear was that there was some good reason that the nfs dependency > was added in the first place, and that it's since been lost.... I vaguely remember there was some compile issue here, but that would have been back in the 2.6.10 era. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- 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
