From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@de.ibm.com>
To: cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] automount support
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:35:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200609131935.17746.arnd.bergmann@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OF55BAD2B1.35B36763-ON852571E8.00524F80-852571E8.005288A4@us.ibm.com>
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 17:01, William Chung wrote:
> I noticed that the stock cell kernel does not enable the autofs and=20
> autofs4 modules. =A0The stock Fedora Core 5 kernel does have these module=
s=20
> enabled. =A0What is the reason for disabling automount support? =A0Would =
there=20
> be any issues to changing arch/powerpc/configs/cell_defconfig to enable=20
> the autofs and autofs4 modules?
While there are no technical reasons against it, it increases build
time on my development system, and I generally try to avoid
adding modules that are not generally needed.
The other defconfig files are inconsistent in this regard:
arch/powerpc/configs/cell_defconfig:# CONFIG_AUTOFS_FS is not set
arch/powerpc/configs/cell_defconfig:# CONFIG_AUTOFS4_FS is not set
arch/powerpc/configs/chrp32_defconfig:# CONFIG_AUTOFS_FS is not set
arch/powerpc/configs/chrp32_defconfig:# CONFIG_AUTOFS4_FS is not set
arch/powerpc/configs/g5_defconfig:CONFIG_AUTOFS_FS=3Dm
arch/powerpc/configs/g5_defconfig:# CONFIG_AUTOFS4_FS is not set
arch/powerpc/configs/iseries_defconfig:CONFIG_AUTOFS_FS=3Dm
arch/powerpc/configs/iseries_defconfig:# CONFIG_AUTOFS4_FS is not set
arch/powerpc/configs/maple_defconfig:# CONFIG_AUTOFS_FS is not set
arch/powerpc/configs/maple_defconfig:# CONFIG_AUTOFS4_FS is not set
arch/powerpc/configs/pmac32_defconfig:# CONFIG_AUTOFS_FS is not set
arch/powerpc/configs/pmac32_defconfig:CONFIG_AUTOFS4_FS=3Dm
arch/powerpc/configs/ppc64_defconfig:CONFIG_AUTOFS_FS=3Dy
arch/powerpc/configs/ppc64_defconfig:# CONFIG_AUTOFS4_FS is not set
arch/powerpc/configs/pseries_defconfig:# CONFIG_AUTOFS_FS is not set
arch/powerpc/configs/pseries_defconfig:CONFIG_AUTOFS4_FS=3Dm
I guess having one of them is pretty common, but not both.
Which one do you prefer?
Arnd <><
next parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-13 17:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <OF55BAD2B1.35B36763-ON852571E8.00524F80-852571E8.005288A4@us.ibm.com>
2006-09-13 17:35 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2006-09-13 18:40 ` [Cbe-oss-dev] automount support William Chung
2006-09-13 19:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200609131935.17746.arnd.bergmann@de.ibm.com \
--to=arnd.bergmann@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox