From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Bird Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] Configure out file locking features Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:24:51 -0700 Message-ID: <48974973.6000408@am.sony.com> References: <20080731092703.661994657@free-electrons.com> <20080731093220.969460336@free-electrons.com> <20080802163848.GB30454@fieldses.org> <20080804155237.1f64892d@surf> <20080804181641.GE25940@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080804181641.GE25940@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, michael@free-electrons.com, Matt Mackall , matthew@wil.cx, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org 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" a =C3=A9crit : >> >>> Out of curiosity, why does the nfs client need disabling, but not >>> nfsd, gfs2, fuse, etc.? >> Then also need disabling. >=20 > 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. -- Tim =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Corporation of America =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel= " in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html