On Tue, 17 May 2011 12:47:35 -0500 Shirish Pargaonkar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 17 May 2011 12:01:12 -0500 > > Shirish Pargaonkar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> >> +if test $enable_cifsidmap != "no"; then > >> >> + AC_CHECK_HEADERS([keyutils.h], , [ > >> >> + if test "$enable_cifsidmap" = "yes"; then > >> >> + AC_MSG_ERROR([keyutils.h not > >> >> found, consider installing keyutils-libs-devel.]) > >> >> + else > >> >> + AC_MSG_WARN([keyutils.h not > >> >> found, consider installing keyutils-libs-devel. Disabling cifs.idmap.]) > >> >> + enable_cifsidmap="no" > >> >> + fi > >> >> + ]) > >> >> +fi > >> >> + > >> > > >> > We're already doing a AC_CHECK_HEADERS for keyutils.h -- I don't think > >> > we want to do it again. Just use the same check for both cifs.upcall > >> > and cifs.idmap. > >> > >> Could someone build just cifs.idmap and not cifs.upcall? > >> > > > > Sure, I don't see why not. > > > > -- > > Jeff Layton <[email protected]> > > > > Then would not we need AC_CHECK_HEADERS for keyutils.h for cifs.idmap > in case cifs.upcall is not being built i.e. do would not we need both > these checks? > > if test ; then > AC_CHECK_HEADERS([keyutils.h], , [ > > > if test $enable_cifsidmap != "no"; then > AC_CHECK_HEADERS([keyutils.h], , [ No, I think you just want to do a single AC_CHECK_HEADERS under: if test $enable_cifsupcall != "no" -o $enable_cifsidmap != "no" ...and then handle both cases correctly. OTOH, I think autoconf might cache the results of AC_CHECK_HEADERS and won't re-do the test, so you may be alright without doing that. I'd verify that by inspecting the log to be sure though. -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
