Manage NFS modularity vs FS-Cache modularity such that NFS doesn't have the
option to use the cache if NFS is built in and FS-Cache is a module.
Signed-Off-By: David Howells <[email protected]>
---
fs/Kconfig | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/Kconfig b/fs/Kconfig
index afec7e1..77cc578 100644
--- a/fs/Kconfig
+++ b/fs/Kconfig
@@ -1507,7 +1507,8 @@ config NFS_V4
config NFS_FSCACHE
bool "Provide NFS client caching support (EXPERIMENTAL)"
- depends on NFS_FS && FSCACHE && EXPERIMENTAL
+ depends on EXPERIMENTAL
+ depends on NFS_FS=m && FSCACHE || NFS_FS=y && FSCACHE=y
help
Say Y here if you want NFS data to be cached locally on disc through
the general filesystem cache manager
Manage AFS modularity vs FS-Cache modularity such that AFS doesn't have the
option to use the cache if AFS is built in and FS-Cache is a module.
Signed-Off-By: David Howells <[email protected]>
---
fs/Kconfig | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/Kconfig b/fs/Kconfig
index 77cc578..25d2019 100644
--- a/fs/Kconfig
+++ b/fs/Kconfig
@@ -1952,7 +1952,8 @@ # for fs/nls/Config.in
config AFS_FSCACHE
bool "Provide AFS client caching support"
- depends on AFS_FS && FSCACHE && EXPERIMENTAL
+ depends on EXPERIMENTAL
+ depends on AFS_FS=m && FSCACHE || AFS_FS=y && FSCACHE=y
help
Say Y here if you want AFS data to be cached locally on through the
generic filesystem cache manager
On Fri, 22 September 2006 12:11:40 +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> bool "Provide AFS client caching support"
(EXPERIMENTAL) ?
> - depends on AFS_FS && FSCACHE && EXPERIMENTAL
> Say Y here if you want AFS data to be cached locally on through the
disk ?
At least I cannot see why the AFS patch differs from the NFS one in
those two details.
J?rn
--
More computing sins are committed in the name of efficiency (without
necessarily achieving it) than for any other single reason - including
blind stupidity.
-- W. A. Wulf
J?rn Engel <[email protected]> wrote:
> At least I cannot see why the AFS patch differs from the NFS one in
> those two details.
Actually, what the patch itself changes doesn't differ significantly - the
difference is in the patch context.
> > bool "Provide AFS client caching support"
> (EXPERIMENTAL) ?
Well, AFS_FS is itself marked as being experimental, so I'm not sure that the
AFS_FSCACHE option needs to be also.
David
On Fri, 22 September 2006 15:17:51 +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> Well, AFS_FS is itself marked as being experimental, so I'm not sure that the
> AFS_FSCACHE option needs to be also.
Good point. The other typo should be fairly obvious, though.
J?rn
--
Fancy algorithms are slow when n is small, and n is usually small.
Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that n is
frequently going to be big, don't get fancy.
-- Rob Pike