From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH 020/100] nfsd: select CONFIG_PROC_FS in nfsv4 and gss server cases Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:24:13 -0500 Message-ID: <20080204232413.GF32086@fieldses.org> References: <1201303040-7779-18-git-send-email-bfields@citi.umich.edu> <1201303040-7779-19-git-send-email-bfields@citi.umich.edu> <1201303040-7779-20-git-send-email-bfields@citi.umich.edu> <20080128182858.GC16785@fieldses.org> <20080128214851.GO16785@fieldses.org> <20080204221521.GH18682@fieldses.org> <2C5597F8-E4D5-4D81-B4CF-83E72B759F53@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org To: Chuck Lever Return-path: Received: from pie.citi.umich.edu ([141.211.133.115]:44701 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753202AbYBDXYS (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:24:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <2C5597F8-E4D5-4D81-B4CF-83E72B759F53@oracle.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 06:17:40PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Feb 4, 2008, at 5:15 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 04:29:40PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> And, a quick grep around other Kconfig files reveals that no-one else >>> uses "select PROC_FS" -- every case uses "depends on". Thus >>> CONFIG_NFSD_V4 should use "depends on PROC_FS" as well. >> >> OK. Is there a chance you make a patch with a changelog summarizing >> this? > > OK, will post after I've synced up with 2.6.25-rc1 + your server > patches. Thanks! >>> Since SUNRPC_GSS is already a non-visible config option and is set >>> via >>> "select", it's more difficult to say with certainty how a "depends on >>> PROC_FS" clause should be constructed for that. However, MAINTAINERS >>> suggests that linux-kbuild@vger might be an appropriate place to ask >>> about these things. >> >> OK, so the question is: how can we ensure that PROC_FS is turned on >> when >> SUNRPC_GSS *and* NFSD are (where both SUNRPC_GSS and NFSD may be >> independently set on or off), while still leaving SUNRPC_GSS a >> tristate >> whose value is at least that of RPCSEC_GSS_KRB5 and RPCSEC_GSS_SPKM3. > > > How about adding "depends on ... && PROC_FS" in the RPCSEC_GSS_FOO > sections? > > I also thought about adding "depends on PROC_FS" under the SUNRPC_GSS > section. Well, in theory I think it's currently possible to build a kernel with NFS and SUNRPC_GSS but no PROC_FS (or NFSD). Such a change would make that no longer possible. (Whether anyone cares, I don't know.) --b.