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?
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...