From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] allocate struct ext4_allocation_context from
	a	kmem	cache to save stack space
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:45:37 -0600
Message-ID: <1202485537.6852.4.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com>
References: <47A9E8CA.2070404@redhat.com>
	 <1202429513.3840.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <47ABAB29.2060300@redhat.com>
	 <1202434636.3840.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <47ABC00A.9080302@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: cmm@us.ibm.com, ext4 development <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <47ABC00A.9080302@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org


On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 20:35 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Mingming Cao wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 19:06 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> Mingming Cao wrote:
> >>
> >>> Do you intend to remove the #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS, or it's a accident? I
> >>> think we need keep that to allow ext4 build without procfs configured.
> >>>
> >>> Other than this, the patch looks fine to me.:)
> >> oh, it kind of snuck in.  It actually should still build, as
> >> remove_proc_entry is a no-op function w/o the config option.
> > 
> > Oh, I mean the proc_mkdir(EXT4_ROOT, proc_root_fs) will complain w/o
> > CONFIG_PROC_FS configured.
> > 
> > Mingming
> > 
> 
> it'll build:
> 
> static inline struct proc_dir_entry *proc_mkdir(const char *name,
>         struct proc_dir_entry *parent) {return NULL;}
> 
> yes, it'll issue a printk though.  *shrug*
> 
> I like fewer #ifdefs better than more, but doesn't matter much to me.

It's strongly encouraged to avoid unnecessary ifdefs.  (Does Christoph
read this list?)  In my opinion, the decision is whether or not to just
remove the printk.

Shaggy
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center