Re: [PATCH] FAT: update document

[OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>]

Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl> writes:

> I am not in favour of introducing such configuration options.
> 
> This is just the default for a mount option. No twiddling at
> kernel configuration time is required or useful.
> 
> We have too many configuration options. It is not true that the system
> becomes better when there are more compile-time configuration possibilities.
> Quite the contrary.
> 
> Compilation options should select inclusion of subsystems,
> modules, drivers, but not twiddle behaviour.
>
> [So, I would be happier if you selected a default and made everybody who
> wants something else adapt her /etc/fstab, or alias for a mountfat command.]

Indeed.

I was forgetting the mount.fat. Probably the mount.fat can do more
good choice.

Also I think that kernel doesn't need to know about nls choice anymore
(include a default). But users may be confused temporarily...

Anyway, I'll rethink this tomorrow.

Thanks a lot.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>