Re: [PATCH 76/86] fs/btrfs: remove depends on CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL

[rh]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:54:08 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL config item has not carried much meaning for a
> while now and is almost always enabled by default. As agreed during
> the Linux kernel summit, remove it from any "depends on" lines in
> Kconfigs.
> 
> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/Kconfig |    3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig
> index d33f01c..ccd25ba 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig
> @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
>  config BTRFS_FS
> -	tristate "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk
> format"
> -	depends on EXPERIMENTAL
> +	tristate "Btrfs filesystem Unstable disk format"

No longer an experiment but still "Unstable".  But is it broken?
Or is it staging or a pet? 
>From my naive point of view it seems like this set of patches is
unleashing a bunch of bad stuff onto anyone that actually sets
CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL "n". But I guess it's supposed to get caught in
linux-next.

>  	select LIBCRC32C
>  	select ZLIB_INFLATE
>  	select ZLIB_DEFLATE
> -- 
> 1.7.9.5
> 


-- 


--
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/