Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 17:32 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>> I assume nobody cares?
>>> You assume wrongly. Patch NAKed...
>> Do you have a use case in mind?  (Just curious.)
> 
> Embedded systems often compile without sysctl and/or procfs support. Why
> shouldn't they be able to run an NFS client with RPCSEC_GSS?
> 
> The other argument is that there is _nothing_ in the actual auth_gss
> code that depends on procfs. The "dependency" (if there is one) is
> between net/sunrpc/cache.c and procfs, and in fact, both sunrpc and the
> auth_gss modules will compile just fine without procfs.

In that case, do we really even need a PROC_FS dependency (forward or 
reverse) for the RPCSEC entries?

It would be simple to split this patch into an NFSD_V4 part and an 
RPCSEC part, and just drop the RPCSEC part.