On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 06:17:40PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Feb 4, 2008, at 5:15 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 04:29:40PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> And, a quick grep around other Kconfig files reveals that no-one else >>> uses "select PROC_FS" -- every case uses "depends on". Thus >>> CONFIG_NFSD_V4 should use "depends on PROC_FS" as well. >> >> OK. Is there a chance you make a patch with a changelog summarizing >> this? > > OK, will post after I've synced up with 2.6.25-rc1 + your server > patches. Thanks! >>> Since SUNRPC_GSS is already a non-visible config option and is set >>> via >>> "select", it's more difficult to say with certainty how a "depends on >>> PROC_FS" clause should be constructed for that. However, MAINTAINERS >>> suggests that linux-kbuild@vger might be an appropriate place to ask >>> about these things. >> >> OK, so the question is: how can we ensure that PROC_FS is turned on >> when >> SUNRPC_GSS *and* NFSD are (where both SUNRPC_GSS and NFSD may be >> independently set on or off), while still leaving SUNRPC_GSS a >> tristate >> whose value is at least that of RPCSEC_GSS_KRB5 and RPCSEC_GSS_SPKM3. > > > How about adding "depends on ... && PROC_FS" in the RPCSEC_GSS_FOO > sections? > > I also thought about adding "depends on PROC_FS" under the SUNRPC_GSS > section. Well, in theory I think it's currently possible to build a kernel with NFS and SUNRPC_GSS but no PROC_FS (or NFSD). Such a change would make that no longer possible. (Whether anyone cares, I don't know.) --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
