Re: [patch 2/4] Configure out file locking features

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 14:25 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:24:51AM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> > J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > >> Le Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:38:48 -0400,
> > >> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> a écrit :
> > >>
> > >>> Out of curiosity, why does the nfs client need disabling, but not
> > >>> nfsd, gfs2, fuse, etc.?
> > >> Then also need disabling.
> > > 
> > > OK by me, but again, why exactly?  Since you're replacing the locking
> > > calls they used by stubs that just return errors, in theory nfs, nfsd,
> > > gfs2, and the rest should still compile and run, just without locking
> > > support, right?
> > 
> > I think so, but haven't tested this myself.
> > 
> > However, I would still be inclined to NOT add the extra config
> > dependencies.  Just my 2 cents.
> 
> OK.  My fear was that there was some good reason that the nfs dependency
> was added in the first place, and that it's since been lost....

I vaguely remember there was some compile issue here, but that would
have been back in the 2.6.10 era.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.