Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >
> > The help text says that if you select CONFIG_LBD, then it will
> > automatically select CONFIG_LFS. Nope... That isn't currently the
> > case.
>
> I'm not sure your patch makes anything much better, though.
>
> Why does CONFIG_LSF exist in the first place? Afaik, it only affects a
> totally not-very-interesting thing (blkcnt_t) for a totally not very
> interesting feature (the number of people who want single files >2TB is
> likely not very big).
Yes, it's strictly a bugfix, but it's not a very big bug. Perhaps we
should turn it on all the time and not have the config option, but it does
have some cost in text size, data size and instruction count.
> Having it auto-selected by LBD sounds insane, since LBD is likely more
> interesting than LSF itsef is. It would make more sense to go the other
> way (have LSF auto-select LBD).
Spose so. I wonder what distributors will choose to do.
It's a bit odd to have a config option to select whether or not to have a
buggy kernel.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
