From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH] configfs: change depends -> select SYSFS Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:13:24 -0800 Message-ID: <4D34DB24.5040800@oracle.com> 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> <1295223733.2998.8.camel@mulgrave.site> <1295244354.22813.98.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20110117102420.5a1c1bf0.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <1295302216.22813.212.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , Stefan Richter , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , linux-scsi , linux-fsdevel , Joel Becker To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" Return-path: Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:23090 "EHLO rcsinet10.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753215Ab1ARAPs (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:15:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1295302216.22813.212.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/17/11 14:10, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 10:24 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:05:54 -0800 Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 18:22 -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > > >>>> This is what I don't understand. >>>> >>>> Actually I think the whole premise of the patch (to get back to the >>>> original topic) is wrong. >>>> >>>> TARGET_CORE depends on SCSI; SCSI has to have sysfs to survive ... we >>>> just don't work without it yet we neither select nor depend on it. >>>> SYSFS is only deselectable for embedded anyway, so I think the >>>> configuration which generated this whole argument was likely a bogus one >>>> and consequently, none of the patches are needed (or if they are, >>>> they're the tip of the iceberg). >>>> >>> >>> This sounds fine for TARGET_CORE, but would still leave GFS2_FS with an >>> unmet direct dependency according to the original warning above. >>> Unfortuately I do not recall which exactly linux-next build >>> configuration was causing this warning to occur from the original post: >>> >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-next&m=129355383112997&w=2 >>> >>> Any more thoughts here Randy..? >> >> >> I've looked at GFS2 a bit now and I think that the warning is bogus: >> >> kconfig complains with: >> warning: (TARGET_CORE && GFS2_FS) selects CONFIGFS_FS which has unmet direct dependencies (SYSFS) >> >> but the "select" is conditional: >> config GFS2_FS >> tristate "GFS2 file system support" >> depends on (64BIT || LBDAF) >> select DLM if GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM >> select CONFIGFS_FS if GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM >> select SYSFS if GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM >> >> and the same condition selects both SYSFS and CONFIGFS_FS. Furthermore, the >> conditional is not true, so neither of them is being selected/enabled. >> Looks like a minor kconfig buglet to me. >> > > Ok, so Linus has pulled the CONFIGFS_FS -> select SYSFS series and it > looks like this 'select SYSFS ...' bit for GFS2_FS can safely be dropped > now.. > > Care to carry this one via your kbuild tree..? Who are you asking? (I don't have a kbuild tree.) -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***