Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756068AbYLKLJP (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:09:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754916AbYLKLI6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:08:58 -0500 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:2641 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754708AbYLKLI5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:08:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:08:39 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Jean Delvare Cc: Trond Myklebust , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency Message-ID: <20081211110839.GH23742@kernel.dk> References: <20081211111614.493d2a62@hyperion.delvare> <20081211104109.GF23742@kernel.dk> <20081211115844.1b1dbf49@hyperion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081211115844.1b1dbf49@hyperion.delvare> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2755 Lines: 84 On Thu, Dec 11 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:41:10 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 11 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Configuration option LSF has a default which contradicts its help > > > text. The help text says "if unsure, say Y" but there is no explicit > > > default, and the default default is N. > > > > > > This inconsistency was introduced by commit > > > 88b9adb073b7a69a54b1b14423103bc24587ebdc. According to the commit > > > message, we want users to enable this option, so it should default to > > > Y. > > > > I wonder if we just shouldn't get rid of this option and just have the > > single CONFIG_LBD option control both of these. If you set CONFIG_LBD, > > you probably want large files as well. And CONFIG_LSF without CONFIG_LBD > > doesn't make a lot of sense. > > > > Would anyone object to such a change? > > No objection from me, getting rid of configuration options almost > always gets my vote :) Yeah, mine too. One recent addition was CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU - why on earth is that an option?! Anyway, how about something like this? Totally untested... diff --git a/block/Kconfig b/block/Kconfig index 1ab7c15..ce566dd 100644 --- a/block/Kconfig +++ b/block/Kconfig @@ -24,21 +24,18 @@ menuconfig BLOCK if BLOCK config LBD - bool "Support for Large Block Devices" + bool "Support for Large Block Devices and files" depends on !64BIT + select LSF help - Enable block devices of size 2TB and larger. + Enable block devices or files of size 2TB and larger. This option is required to support the full capacity of large (2TB+) block devices, including RAID, disk, Network Block Device, Logical Volume Manager (LVM) and loopback. - - For example, RAID devices are frequently bigger than the capacity - of the largest individual hard drive. - - This option is not required if you have individual disk drives - which total 2TB+ and you are not aggregating the capacity into - a large block device (e.g. using RAID or LVM). + + This option also enables support for single files larger than + 2TB. If unsure, say N. @@ -57,15 +54,6 @@ config BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE If unsure, say N. -config LSF - bool "Support for Large Single Files" - depends on !64BIT - help - Say Y here if you want to be able to handle very large files (2TB - and larger), otherwise say N. - - If unsure, say Y. - config BLK_DEV_BSG bool "Block layer SG support v4 (EXPERIMENTAL)" depends on EXPERIMENTAL -- Jens Axboe -- 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/