On 18/05/18 12:38, Ian Kent wrote:
> On 18/05/18 12:23, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 05/17/2018 08:50 PM, Ian Kent wrote:
>>> On 18/05/18 08:21, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On 05/17/2018 04:26 PM, a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
>>>>> The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2018-05-17-16-26 has been uploaded to
>>>>>    http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/
>>>>> mmotm-readme.txt says
>>>>> README for mm-of-the-moment:
>>>>> http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/
>>>>> This is a snapshot of my -mm patch queue.  Uploaded at random hopefully
>>>>> more than once a week.
>>>>> You will need quilt to apply these patches to the latest Linus release 
>>>>> (4.x
>>>>> or 4.x-rcY).  The series file is in broken-out.tar.gz and is duplicated in
>>>>> http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/series
>>>>> The file broken-out.tar.gz contains two datestamp files: .DATE and
>>>>> .DATE-yyyy-mm-dd-hh-mm-ss.  Both contain the string yyyy-mm-dd-hh-mm-ss,
>>>>> followed by the base kernel version against which this patch series is to
>>>>> be applied.
>>>>> This tree is partially included in linux-next.  To see which patches are
>>>>> included in linux-next, consult the `series' file.  Only the patches
>>>>> within the #NEXT_PATCHES_START/#NEXT_PATCHES_END markers are included in
>>>>> linux-next.
>>>>> A git tree which contains the memory management portion of this tree is
>>>>> maintained at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git
>>>>> by Michal Hocko.  It contains the patches which are between the
>>>>> "#NEXT_PATCHES_START mm" and "#NEXT_PATCHES_END" markers, from the series
>>>>> file, http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/series.
>>>>> A full copy of the full kernel tree with the linux-next and mmotm patches
>>>>> already applied is available through git within an hour of the mmotm
>>>>> release.  Individual mmotm releases are tagged.  The master branch always
>>>>> points to the latest release, so it's constantly rebasing.
>>>> on x86_64: with (randconfig):
>>> Oh right, I need to make these exclusive.
>>> I seem to remember trying to do that along the way, can't remember why
>>> I didn't do it in the end.
>>> Any suggestions about potential problems when doing it?
>> I think that just using "depends on" for each of them will cause kconfig to
>> complain about circular dependencies, so probably using "choice" will be
>> needed.  Or (since this is just temporary?) just say "don't do that."
> No doubt that was what happened, unfortunately I forgot to return to it.
> Right, a conditional with a message should work .... thanks.

It looks like adding:
depends on AUTOFS_FS = n && AUTOFS_FS != m

to autofs4/Kconfig results in autofs4 appearing under the autofs entry
if AUTOFS_FS is not set which should call attention to it.

It also results in AUTOFS4_FS=n for any setting of AUTOFS_FS except n.

Together with some words about it in the AUTOFS4_FS help it should be
enough to raise awareness of the change.


Reply via email to