Re: [PATCH] config: Fix CONFIG_LFS option
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:34:29 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Trond Myklebust wrote:
The help text says that if you select CONFIG_LBD, then it will
automatically select CONFIG_LFS. Nope... That isn't currently the
case.
I'm not sure your patch makes anything much better, though.
Why does CONFIG_LSF exist in the first place? Afaik, it only affects a
totally not-very-interesting thing (blkcnt_t) for a totally not very
interesting feature (the number of people who want single files >2TB is
likely not very big).
Having it auto-selected by LBD sounds insane, since LBD is likely more
interesting than LSF itsef is. It would make more sense to go the other
way (have LSF auto-select LBD).
Linus
-
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] config: Fix CONFIG_LFS option
- From: Trond Myklebust
- Re: [PATCH] config: Fix CONFIG_LFS option
- From: Andrew Morton
- Re: [PATCH] config: Fix CONFIG_LFS option
- References:
- [PATCH] config: Fix CONFIG_LFS option
- From: Trond Myklebust
- [PATCH] config: Fix CONFIG_LFS option
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] Janitor: drivers/net/pcnet32: fix incorrect comments
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] rtc: Added support for ds1672 control
- Previous by thread: [PATCH] config: Fix CONFIG_LFS option
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] config: Fix CONFIG_LFS option
- Index(es):