Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754303AbbK0OuK (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:50:10 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35672 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751484AbbK0OuI (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:50:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] logfs: clarify MTD dependency To: Arnd Bergmann References: <9365895.IkncCfXjo6@wuerfel> <20151127141406.GA29886@sepie.suse.cz> <3269089.8XYbbcUOLH@wuerfel> Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=b6rn_Engel?= , Prasad Joshi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org From: Michal Marek Message-ID: <56586D9D.1000603@suse.com> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:50:05 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3269089.8XYbbcUOLH@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1561 Lines: 40 On 2015-11-27 15:30, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 27 November 2015 15:14:06 Michal Marek wrote: >> >> Hi Arnd, >> >> I hit this as well and was about to submit a slightly different fix. Can >> you try the logfs portion of the below patch? Proper changelog is to be >> done, but the gist of the patch is that IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_FOO) >> evaluates to 1 if CONFIG_FOO=y or we are building a module and >> CONFIG_FOO=m. >> > > I thought about doing it that way, and I'm sure that also worked. > The possible behaviors are basically: > > a) before your original patch, building logfs with CONFIG_MTD=m would > silently leave out MTD support, which was rather confusing. > > b) with my patch, it becomes impossible to have logfs as the built-in > root file system on a block device while also using CONFIG_MTD=m, > and that may be slightly annoying > > c) your patch restores a), but makes it work in the case where both > logfs and mtd are loadable modules, which is an improvement but > may still confuse users. > > My preference is still version b) as I sent, but I don't really mind > your version either. I used the IS_REACHABLE macro because it hides the boolean expressions nicely :). But I also do not insist on a particular solution. J?rn, what would be your preference? Thanks, Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/