From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261356AbULTAQv (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:16:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261358AbULTAQv (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:16:51 -0500 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:40460 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261356AbULTAQt (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:16:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:16:44 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk To: mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net, zaitcev@yahoo.com Cc: greg@kroah.com, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RFC: [2.6 patch] let BLK_DEV_UB depend on EMBEDDED Message-ID: <20041220001644.GI21288@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I've already seen people crippling their usb-storage driver with enabling BLK_DEV_UB - and I doubt the warning in the help text added after 2.6.9 will fix all such problems. Is there except for kernel size any good reason for using BLK_DEV_UB instead of USB_STORAGE? If not, I'd suggest the patch below to let BLK_DEV_UB depend on EMBEDDED. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk --- linux-2.6.10-rc3-mm1-full/drivers/block/Kconfig.old 2004-12-20 00:52:22.000000000 +0100 +++ linux-2.6.10-rc3-mm1-full/drivers/block/Kconfig 2004-12-20 00:52:39.000000000 +0100 @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ config BLK_DEV_UB tristate "Low Performance USB Block driver" - depends on USB + depends on USB && EMBEDDED help This driver supports certain USB attached storage devices such as flash keys.