From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suresh Jayaraman Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] cifs: CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL removal (try #2) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:58:22 +0530 Message-ID: <4D0B8196.3050102@suse.de> References: <1291820625-20907-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: smfrench-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1291820625-20907-1-git-send-email-jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 12/08/2010 08:33 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > This is the second version of this patchset. The changes since the last > set are: > > 1) The patch to remove "/proc/fs/cifs/Experimental" did not remove the > deregistration of that file, which caused a warning on rmmod. > > 2) The patch to remove "/proc/fs/cifs/Experimental" now adds a new > module parameter so that people relying on it to allow zero-copy > writes with signing have a way to continue using that. > > A modified description of the set follows... > > The CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL KConfig option is the sort of thing that > gives distro packagers nightmares. The things that live under it are > impossible to predict for someone who isn't following development > upstream. In general, I like the overall idea of removing heavily overloaded CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL config option. It's true that it was at times hard to narrow down suspect once this option is enabled. However, the dependency of a few options on EXPERIMENTAL (fscache and acl) is not removed. CIFS_FSCACHE can be marked as not dependent on EXPERIMENTAL. Not sure about CIFS_ACL though. Can you make this patchset or a subsequent patch accomodates this change too? -- Suresh Jayaraman