* Removed MSDOS/FAT/VFAT support; keeping CONFIG_MODULES
@ 2012-02-17 16:53 Jody Bruchon
2012-02-17 16:58 ` Petr Koval
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jody Bruchon @ 2012-02-17 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-8086
All options to support FAT filesystems and the VFAT extensions had no
code associated with them and thus were removed.
That leaves only one CONFIG_NOT_YET item: CONFIG_MODULES, which is also
a trigger for the Kconfig "tristate" system. Because removing this item
requires also removing the Kconfig tristate capability, and we may want
modules one day, I intend to remove CONFIG_NOT_YET but leave
CONFIG_MODULES included, with a Big Fat Warning(TM) that it is as-yet
unimplemented.
Jody Bruchon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Removed MSDOS/FAT/VFAT support; keeping CONFIG_MODULES
2012-02-17 16:53 Removed MSDOS/FAT/VFAT support; keeping CONFIG_MODULES Jody Bruchon
@ 2012-02-17 16:58 ` Petr Koval
2012-02-17 17:02 ` Jody Bruchon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Petr Koval @ 2012-02-17 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jody Bruchon, linux-8086
Jody Bruchon wrote:
> All options to support FAT filesystems and the VFAT extensions had no
> code associated with them and thus were removed.
>
> That leaves only one CONFIG_NOT_YET item: CONFIG_MODULES, which is
> also a trigger for the Kconfig "tristate" system. Because removing
> this item requires also removing the Kconfig tristate capability, and
> we may want modules one day, I intend to remove CONFIG_NOT_YET but
> leave CONFIG_MODULES included, with a Big Fat Warning(TM) that it is
> as-yet unimplemented.
>
> Jody Bruchon
is it possible to have (V)FAT support later?
Petr Koval
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Removed MSDOS/FAT/VFAT support; keeping CONFIG_MODULES
2012-02-17 16:58 ` Petr Koval
@ 2012-02-17 17:02 ` Jody Bruchon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jody Bruchon @ 2012-02-17 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-8086
On 02/17/12 11:58, Petr Koval wrote:
> is it possible to have (V)FAT support later?
>
> Petr Koval
Yes, if a driver is written for it (something which I eventually intend
to do), then it will be implemented. At this time, I am focusing my
efforts on cleaning the cruft out. Since one of the less emphasized
goals of ELKS is to be an easy-to-understand kernel for educational
purposes, removing these junky items cluttering the menus and code will
help with that process in many ways. For me personally, I find the
existence of options to compile in features that literally DO NOT EXIST
to be very annoying. When a FAT filesystem driver is being written, the
menu option for compiling it in will be added back as well.
From what I understand, everyone now working on ELKS is fairly new to
the project, or has not worked with it actively for quite some time. We
need to be able to see where we are so we know where to go, without
having to sift through false positives like "elksfs" and "VFAT" that are
in reality non-existent or might as well be rendered the same.
In summary: let me clean the code up first, then we'll worry about a FAT
filesystem implementation. :-)
Jody Bruchon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-02-17 17:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-02-17 16:53 Removed MSDOS/FAT/VFAT support; keeping CONFIG_MODULES Jody Bruchon
2012-02-17 16:58 ` Petr Koval
2012-02-17 17:02 ` Jody Bruchon
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox