From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] NFSD: Use "depends on" for PROC_FS dependency Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:48:25 -0500 Message-ID: <1202939305.10574.28.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <20080211221216.1047.31922.stgit@manray.1015granger.net> <20080212212325.GM18625@fieldses.org> <1202852836.9228.1.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20080212223235.GP18625@fieldses.org> <1202857069.9228.14.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <47B33A99.60400@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: chuck.lever@oracle.com Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]:48835 "EHLO pat.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934795AbYBMVsl (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:48:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <47B33A99.60400@oracle.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:44 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 17:32 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >>>> I assume nobody cares? > >>> You assume wrongly. Patch NAKed... > >> Do you have a use case in mind? (Just curious.) > > > > Embedded systems often compile without sysctl and/or procfs support. Why > > shouldn't they be able to run an NFS client with RPCSEC_GSS? > > OK, it looks like the patch that adds the "depends on SYSCTL" to the > LOCKD entry will cause NFS-enabled builds to break if CONFIG_SYSCTL is > disabled, thanks to the recent addition of nlmclnt_init and nlmclnt_done. > > Probably the better solution in this case is to ifdef out the > register_sysctl() call in lockd if CONFIG_SYSCTL isn't set. In the long > run, should we make it possible to build the NFS client without lockd? In the long run, we really ought to try to make it possible to build a NFSv3-only, or a NFSv4-only client, so yes...