From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] FS-Cache: Generic filesystem caching facility Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:33:49 +0100 Message-ID: <17634.1145648029@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> References: <20060421113805.2ec6fd74.akpm@osdl.org> <20060420174622.6d7390d6.akpm@osdl.org> <20060420165927.9968.33912.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20060420165937.9968.57149.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <18005.1145628949@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Reply-To: Linux filesystem caching discussion list Cc: aviro@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060421113805.2ec6fd74.akpm@osdl.org> To: Andrew Morton List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-cachefs-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-cachefs-bounces@redhat.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > > Modules that might depend on fscache need to know that it's there, > > In theory, module A isn't supposed to care whether module B was configured, > because module B might be compiled separately, or dowloaded from elsewhere > or whatever. In this case it's sort of necessary - unless you're suggesting I make FS-Cache mandatory... The problem is that I don't want NFS or whatever to be carrying around the cookie pointers if FS-Cache isn't compiled as that saves memory. But that involves conditionally changing the composition of structures, something that's most clearly done with cpp-conditionals. David