From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ext4: Don't ask about supporting ext2/3 in ext4 if ext4 is not configured Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:10:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <20091214135546.10111.4495.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:39521 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756229AbZLNSKl (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:10:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091214135546.10111.4495.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, David Howells wrote: > config EXT4_USE_FOR_EXT23 > bool "Use ext4 for ext2/ext3 file systems" > - depends on EXT3_FS=n || EXT2_FS=n > + depends on EXT4_FS && (EXT3_FS=n || EXT2_FS=n) Side note: I think we should actively avoid complex config dependency expressions. The above can be written with simpler expressions by just splitting it in two, and I think it makes it more readable: depends on EXT4_FS depends on EXT3_FS=n || EXT2_FS=n since the two expressions are logically totally unrelated: one is just the obvious "this kconfig doesn't make sense without ext4" thing that was missing before, and the other is a totally unrelated "if you already have selected ext2 and ext3, then you clearly don't want ext4 to deal with them". Linus