Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 17:32 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>> I assume nobody cares?
>>> You assume wrongly. Patch NAKed...
>> Do you have a use case in mind?  (Just curious.)
> 
> Embedded systems often compile without sysctl and/or procfs support. Why
> shouldn't they be able to run an NFS client with RPCSEC_GSS?

OK, it looks like the patch that adds the "depends on SYSCTL" to the 
LOCKD entry will cause NFS-enabled builds to break if CONFIG_SYSCTL is 
disabled, thanks to the recent addition of nlmclnt_init and nlmclnt_done.

Probably the better solution in this case is to ifdef out the 
register_sysctl() call in lockd if CONFIG_SYSCTL isn't set.  In the long 
run, should we make it possible to build the NFS client without lockd?