Re: [PATCH v2 12/23] netpoll: Introduce netpoll_target configs

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 05:06:45PM +0800, Am??rico Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:34:24AM -0800, Mike Waychison wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Am??rico Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:30:24AM +0800, Am??rico Wang wrote:
> >>>
> >> ....
> >>>
> >>>So, either we need to de-modulize configfs or replace configfs API
> >>>with sysfs API. Personally, I prefer the former one, I don't think
> >>>configfs should be a module as long as it can provide API's
> >>>for other subsystems, like debugfs.
> >>>
> >>
> >> To clarify, I meant "as long as the API it provides can be used by
> >> other core subsystems".
> >>
> >
> >Ya, I see the problem with it being a tristate.
> >
> >Why not just make netconsole support being compiled in force configfs
> >to be compiled in?  Or does that just set bad precedent?
> 
> That is what netconsole does now, and this is fine, since netconsole is
> a module too, however, after you move that code into netpoll, then netpoll
> will have a dependence on it, we will have problems.
> 
> I think we can let NETPOLL_TARGET depend on CONFIGFS_FS=y, but I still
> see no reason why CONFIGFS_FS should be a module.

No, just have the NETPOLL_TARGET set CONFIG_FS to y, don't force the
code to always be that way if the user isn't going to want that option.

So as it originally was should have been fine.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/