From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH] BLOCK: Make it possible to disable the block layer Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:34:16 +0100 Message-ID: <778.1156426456@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> References: <1156425193.3012.32.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <32640.1156424442@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Cc: David Howells , Jens Axboe , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:52413 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751460AbWHXNem (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:34:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1156425193.3012.32.camel@pmac.infradead.org> To: David Woodhouse Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org David Woodhouse wrote: > > (*) The contents of a number of filesystem- and blockdev-specific header > > files are now contingent on their own configuration options. This > > includes: Ext3/JBD, RAID, MSDOS and ReiserFS. > > Why? Those header files shouldn't be included from anywhere _but_ the > code in question, Go and look at fs/compat_ioctl.c. > and in fact should probably be just moved into fs/foo instead of living in > include/linux/foo_fs.h. Definitely. Patches please:-) > And please, _never_ make anything dependent on CONFIG_foo_MODULE. Ah, but... The core kernel makes use of the certain header files, even when their actual intended target is compiled as a module. If I just use "CONFIG_foo" only, then the module won't compile as a module. David