Re: [PATCH] config: Fix CONFIG_LFS option

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote:



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).

Yes, it's strictly a bugfix, but it's not a very big bug. Perhaps we
should turn it on all the time and not have the config option, but it does
have some cost in text size, data size and instruction count.

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).

Spose so. I wonder what distributors will choose to do.

It's a bit odd to have a config option to select whether or not to have a
buggy kernel.

-
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/