On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 00:06 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote: > On Jan 16 Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 14:11 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote: > > > On Jan 15 Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > > This patch changes configfs to select SYSFS to fix the following: > > > > > > > > warning: (TARGET_CORE && GFS2_FS) selects CONFIGFS_FS which has unmet direct dependencies (SYSFS) > > > > > > Why don't you fix target-core's Kconfig instead? > > > > The thought here was that since modern configfs is mounted > > at /sys/kernel/config/, selecting SYSFS by default when building > > CONFIGFS_FS made the most sense for existing configfs consumers. > > I for one think that layered "select" directives will open too many cans > of worms. > > Best don't use select at all. > > If you use it, select only options that don't depend on anything else. > > If you feel that people really want you to provide a select for them which > selects something that in turn depends on other things, then I suggest you > rather let your own option depend on these lower dependencies: > > config HIGHLEVEL_FEATURE > tristate "some driver" > depends on SYSFS # because CONFIGFS depends on it > select CONFIGFS I think this is a fair point.. As I don't really have a strong preference either way, I will have to defer to Randy and Joel's better judgement here. Guys, what would you prefer..? Thanks, --nab -- 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
