From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752341Ab1APXPE (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:15:04 -0500 Received: from mail.linux-iscsi.org ([67.23.28.174]:57733 "EHLO linux-iscsi.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751532Ab1APXO7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:14:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] configfs: change depends -> select SYSFS From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" To: Stefan Richter Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , linux-scsi , linux-fsdevel , Joel Becker , Randy Dunlap , James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <20110117000659.57352da7@stein> 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> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:14:55 -0800 Message-Id: <1295219695.22813.66.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 00:06 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote: > On Jan 16 Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 14:11 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote: > > > On Jan 15 Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > > This patch changes configfs to select SYSFS to fix the following: > > > > > > > > warning: (TARGET_CORE && GFS2_FS) selects CONFIGFS_FS which has unmet direct dependencies (SYSFS) > > > > > > Why don't you fix target-core's Kconfig instead? > > > > The thought here was that since modern configfs is mounted > > at /sys/kernel/config/, selecting SYSFS by default when building > > CONFIGFS_FS made the most sense for existing configfs consumers. > > I for one think that layered "select" directives will open too many cans > of worms. > > Best don't use select at all. > > If you use it, select only options that don't depend on anything else. > > If you feel that people really want you to provide a select for them which > selects something that in turn depends on other things, then I suggest you > rather let your own option depend on these lower dependencies: > > config HIGHLEVEL_FEATURE > tristate "some driver" > depends on SYSFS # because CONFIGFS depends on it > select CONFIGFS I think this is a fair point.. As I don't really have a strong preference either way, I will have to defer to Randy and Joel's better judgement here. Guys, what would you prefer..? Thanks, --nab