From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261433AbVAUANt (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:13:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261274AbVAUANp (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:13:45 -0500 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:17662 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262231AbVAUAMW (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:12:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:04:06 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Adrian Bunk , zaitcev@yahoo.com, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] let BLK_DEV_UB depend on USB_STORAGE=n Message-ID: <20050121000406.GB14469@kroah.com> References: <20041220001644.GI21288@stusta.de> <20041220003146.GB11358@kroah.com> <20041223024031.GO5217@stusta.de> <20050119220707.GM4151@kroah.com> <20050120024900.GA5506@one-eyed-alien.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050120024900.GA5506@one-eyed-alien.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:49:00PM -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 02:07:07PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 03:40:31AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 04:31:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > I've already seen people crippling their usb-storage driver with > > > > > enabling BLK_DEV_UB - and I doubt the warning in the help text added > > > > > after 2.6.9 will fix all such problems. > > > > > > > > > > Is there except for kernel size any good reason for using BLK_DEV_UB > > > > > instead of USB_STORAGE? > > > > > > > > You don't want to use the scsi layer? You like the stability of it at > > > > times? :) > > > > > > > > > If not, I'd suggest the patch below to let BLK_DEV_UB depend > > > > > on EMBEDDED. > > > > > > > > No, it's good for non-embedded boxes too. > > > > > > > > > My current understanding is: > > > - BLK_DEV_UB supports a subset of what USB_STORAGE can support > > > - for an average user, there's no reason to enable BLK_DEV_UB > > > - if you really know what you are doing, there might be several reasons > > > why you might want to use BLK_DEV_UB > > > > I have been running with just the code portion of this patch for a while > > now, with good results (no Kconfig changes.) > > > > Pete and Matt, do you mind me applying the following portion of the > > patch to the kernel tree? > > I have no objection. Ok, I've commited the change to my trees, thanks. greg k-h