From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/3] Fix problems on multi-TB filesystem and file Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:22:48 -0500 Message-ID: <1137619368.8706.42.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <000101c61c2e$59230b20$4168010a@bsd.tnes.nec.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 'Andrew Morton' , 'Andreas Dilger' , torvalds@osdl.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:64448 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964928AbWARVXT (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:23:19 -0500 To: Takashi Sato In-Reply-To: <000101c61c2e$59230b20$4168010a@bsd.tnes.nec.co.jp> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 21:54 +0900, Takashi Sato wrote: > > CONFIG_LFS would become a specialised option for embedded systems and > > for the minority of people who self-compile kernels. I just don't > > think that's worth the maintainability hassle. > > I added CONFIG_LSF to use large filesystem over network with >2TB file > even on a small system as CONFIG_LBD disable. And I heard that some > people dislike network filesystems depending on block device. > > Trond, do you have comments about integrating CONFIG_LFS and > CONFIG_LBD? If you do merge CONFIG_LFS and CONFIG_LBD, then please throw out the name CONFIG_LBD in favour of CONFIG_LFS, since the resulting option will _not_ be block device specific. Unless someone has some really good arguments against it, I too would vote for hiding both options behind CONFIG_EMBEDDED. Cheers, Trond