From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] configfs: change depends -> select SYSFS
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:14:55 -0800
Message-ID: <1295219695.22813.66.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org>
References: <1295125851-25279-1-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org>
	 <20110116141105.59e5b3a2@stein>
	 <1295214807.22813.57.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org>
	 <20110117000659.57352da7@stein>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Return-path: <linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110117000659.57352da7@stein>
Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 00:06 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> On Jan 16 Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 14:11 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > > On Jan 15 Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > > This patch changes configfs to select SYSFS to fix the following:
> > > > 
> > > > warning: (TARGET_CORE && GFS2_FS) selects CONFIGFS_FS which has unmet direct dependencies (SYSFS)
> > > 
> > > Why don't you fix target-core's Kconfig instead?
> > 
> > The thought here was that since modern configfs is mounted
> > at /sys/kernel/config/, selecting SYSFS by default when building
> > CONFIGFS_FS made the most sense for existing configfs consumers.
> 
> I for one think that layered "select" directives will open too many cans
> of worms.
> 
> Best don't use select at all.
> 
> If you use it, select only options that don't depend on anything else.
> 
> If you feel that people really want you to provide a select for them which
> selects something that in turn depends on other things, then I suggest you
> rather let your own option depend on these lower dependencies:
> 
> config HIGHLEVEL_FEATURE
> 	tristate "some driver"
> 	depends on SYSFS  # because CONFIGFS depends on it
> 	select CONFIGFS

I think this is a fair point..  As I don't really have a strong
preference either way, I will have to defer to Randy and Joel's better
judgement here.  Guys, what would you prefer..?

Thanks,

--nab