[PATCH] Kconfig: XIP doesn't depend on block

[PATCH] Kconfig: XIP doesn't depend on block

[Marco Stornelli]

From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>

XIP doesn't depend on block symbol, then we can reorder the Kconfig.
For ext2 doesn't change the Kconfig behavior but if other fs will use
FS_XIP it won't need to include block support if not needed.

Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>
---

--- Kconfig.orig	2011-01-19 00:14:02.000000000 +0100
+++ Kconfig	2011-02-06 16:04:51.000000000 +0100
@@ -9,13 +9,6 @@ if BLOCK
 source "fs/ext2/Kconfig"
 source "fs/ext3/Kconfig"
 source "fs/ext4/Kconfig"
-
-config FS_XIP
-# execute in place
-	bool
-	depends on EXT2_FS_XIP
-	default y
-
 source "fs/jbd/Kconfig"
 source "fs/jbd2/Kconfig"
 
@@ -38,6 +31,12 @@ source "fs/nilfs2/Kconfig"
 
 endif # BLOCK
 
+config FS_XIP
+# execute in place
+	bool
+	depends on EXT2_FS_XIP
+	default y
+
 # Posix ACL utility routines
 #
 # Note: Posix ACLs can be implemented without these helpers.  Never use

Re: [PATCH] Kconfig: XIP doesn't depend on block

[Randy Dunlap]

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:15:00 +0100 Marco Stornelli wrote:

> From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>
> 
> XIP doesn't depend on block symbol, then we can reorder the Kconfig.
> For ext2 doesn't change the Kconfig behavior but if other fs will use
> FS_XIP it won't need to include block support if not needed.

Hi Marco,

Do you know of a filesystem where this matters?

> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
> --- Kconfig.orig	2011-01-19 00:14:02.000000000 +0100
> +++ Kconfig	2011-02-06 16:04:51.000000000 +0100

This filename should include path, like
--- fs/Kconfig.orig
+++ fs/Kconfig

> @@ -9,13 +9,6 @@ if BLOCK
>  source "fs/ext2/Kconfig"
>  source "fs/ext3/Kconfig"
>  source "fs/ext4/Kconfig"
> -

The 3 filesystems above are immediately under:

if BLOCK

so ext[234] depend on BLOCK.  Why would it matter about FS_XIP?

I don't object to the patch if FS_XIP builds/works without BLOCK being
enabled.


> -config FS_XIP
> -# execute in place
> -	bool
> -	depends on EXT2_FS_XIP
> -	default y
> -
>  source "fs/jbd/Kconfig"
>  source "fs/jbd2/Kconfig"
>  
> @@ -38,6 +31,12 @@ source "fs/nilfs2/Kconfig"
>  
>  endif # BLOCK
>  
> +config FS_XIP
> +# execute in place
> +	bool
> +	depends on EXT2_FS_XIP
> +	default y
> +
>  # Posix ACL utility routines
>  #
>  # Note: Posix ACLs can be implemented without these helpers.  Never use
> 


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***

Re: [PATCH] Kconfig: XIP doesn't depend on block

[Marco Stornelli]

2011/2/6 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:15:00 +0100 Marco Stornelli wrote:
>
>> From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>
>>
>> XIP doesn't depend on block symbol, then we can reorder the Kconfig.
>> For ext2 doesn't change the Kconfig behavior but if other fs will use
>> FS_XIP it won't need to include block support if not needed.
>
> Hi Marco,
>
> Do you know of a filesystem where this matters?
>

Yes, for example mine (pramfs) :)

>> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>> --- Kconfig.orig      2011-01-19 00:14:02.000000000 +0100
>> +++ Kconfig   2011-02-06 16:04:51.000000000 +0100
>
> This filename should include path, like
> --- fs/Kconfig.orig
> +++ fs/Kconfig
>
>> @@ -9,13 +9,6 @@ if BLOCK
>>  source "fs/ext2/Kconfig"
>>  source "fs/ext3/Kconfig"
>>  source "fs/ext4/Kconfig"
>> -
>
> The 3 filesystems above are immediately under:
>
> if BLOCK
>
> so ext[234] depend on BLOCK.  Why would it matter about FS_XIP?
>

I don't know but for example even POSIX ACL was under "if BLOCK",
maybe there is only an historical refuse.

Marco