On 08/12/10 08:57, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 08:39 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 08/11/10 19:46, Jan Kara wrote: >>> On Wed 11-08-10 16:24:35, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> warning: (GFS2_FS && BLOCK && EXPERIMENTAL && (64BIT || LBDAF)) selects QUOTACTL which has unmet direct dependencies (XFS_QUOTA || QUOTA) >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx >>>> --- >>>> fs/quota/Kconfig | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> However, the "depends on" line here seems like overkill to me. >>> OK, so do you mean that making QUOTACTL default to 'n', removing the >>> depends on line and letting QUOTA, XFS_QUOTA, and GFS2_QUOTA select >>> QUOTACTL would be better? >> > I'm not sure I follow. What is GFS2_QUOTA in this case? GFS2 used to That's OK. I'm not following you either. ;) Where is GFS2_QUOTA? > select QUOTA as well, but Christoph removed that. Shouldn't the user > interface part of quota be separate from the core implementation? Do people use one without the other? > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=e9edb1d8a345119c9baafa1b240eb1ec06a44662 Do you prefer my original patch that started this thread? If fs/quota/Kconfig says: config QUOTACTL bool depends on XFS_QUOTA || QUOTA || GFS2_FS default y then there is no need for fs/gfs2/Kconfig to select QUOTACTL. Anyway, this is a centralized kconfig control of QUOTACTL. I was just suggesting that having each fs control is locally would be more manageable. It's not a big deal. -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** -- 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
