On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 17:12 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 16:57 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Steve Dickson <steved@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This patch adds the NFS_V4_SECURITY_LABEL entry which > > > enables security label support for the NFSv4 client > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Steve Dickson <steved@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > fs/nfs/Kconfig | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/Kconfig b/fs/nfs/Kconfig > > > index 79c500e..771831d3 100644 > > > --- a/fs/nfs/Kconfig > > > +++ b/fs/nfs/Kconfig > > > @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ config NFS_V4_1 > > > config NFS_V4_2 > > > bool "NFS client support for NFSv4.2" > > > depends on NFS_V4_1 > > > + select NFS_V4_SECURITY_LABEL > > > > So this will force it on... > > > > > help > > > This option enables support for minor version 1 of the NFSv4 protocol > > > in the kernel's NFS client. > > > @@ -140,6 +141,24 @@ config NFS_V4_1_IMPLEMENTATION_ID_DOMAIN > > > If the NFS client is unchanged from the upstream kernel, this > > > option should be set to the default "kernel.org". > > > > > > +config NFS_V4_SECURITY_LABEL > > > + bool "Provide Security Label support for NFSv4 client" > > > + depends on NFS_V4 && SECURITY > > > > Even if SECURITY is not set? > > > > Why are you forcing this on with a select? select is dangerous.. > > Eric is right. In any case, we already agreed that we don't need _both_ > a NFSv4.2 and a NFSv4 security label switch. > > Please just get rid of NFS_V4_SECURITY_LABEL. > Sorry. I mean, just replace it with config NFS_V4_SECURITY_LABEL bool depend on NFS_V4_2 && SECURITY default Y -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
