Re: [PATCH] FAT: update document

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Andries Brouwer <aebr@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/