Re: [PATCH 17/17] BLOCK: Make it possible to disable the block layer [try #2]

[David Howells]

Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Can you put this two into a single ifdef block?

I suppose it could make sense to move the two disk random source functions
together.

> >  config USB_STORAGE
> >  	tristate "USB Mass Storage support"
> > -	depends on USB
> > +	depends on USB && BLOCK
> 
> ditto.

ditto?

> again, try to reorder things here to only require a single ifdef block
> (or rather two, a second one for the array entries) if possible.

The problem with reordering things is that it makes the patch bigger, and that
makes people complain about not minimalising the changes.

> Can we put this into some other file under #ifndef CONFIG_BLOCK to
> avoid the separate file and makefile ugliness?

*blink*

What've you done with the real Christoph Hellwig?  You're actually *advocating*
the use of a cpp-conditional in a .c file!

It doesn't really belong in any of the files that are left.

> No one should include this file unless block device support is enabled,
> so I don't see the point for the ifdefs.  Ditto for many other header
> files you touch that don't contain any stubs for generic code.

Someone did.  Might've been USB storage now that I think about it.

> And btw, shouldn't the option be CONFIG_BLK_DEV instead of CONFIG_BLOCK
> to fit the variour CONFIG_BLK_DEV_FOO options we have?

No.

I'm not enabling a specific block device driver.  I'm taking out the entire
block layer, block drivers, block scheduler and everything that depends on it
(such as SCSI).

David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/