On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:36:26PM -0800, Jon Watte wrote: > Stefan Richter wrote: > >>Those systems (servers) typically have enough memory to tolerate a few > >>extra KB of code without problems. In fact most PCs these days have. > >> > > > >It would be a stupid solution nevertheless. > > > >(We also don't "select EXT3".) > > > Not selecting EXT3 is a little more understandable, because there are > many options -- cramfs, xfs, reiserfs, etc, depending on target. > However, the number of people who DO want SATA support but DO NOT want > SD block device support is... uh.. anyone? > > Solving the problem bigger and better, by factoring "SD" into a > mid-level menu, and maybe calling it something non-SCSI, would probably > be even better. And even more work. OK, how about this? config BLK_DEV_ATA_SD tristate "ATA disc support" select BLK_DEV_SD config BLK_DEV_ATA_SR tristate "ATA CDROM support" select BLK_DEV_SR Help text left as an exercise for the reader. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
