On 2013/07/26 12:54 AM, "Xiong Zhou" <jencce.ker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>2013/7/26 Dilger, Andreas <andreas.dil...@intel.com>: >> On 2013/07/25 1:06 AM, "Xiong Zhou" <jencce.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>From: Xiong Zhou <jencce.ker...@gmail.com> >>> >>>Add BLOCK depends in Kconfig for LUSTRE to fix this: >>>drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fid/../include/linux/lustre_compat25.h:117 >>>:2 >>>: >>>error: implicit declaration of function ʽunregister_blkdevʼ >>> >>>Signed-off-by: Xiong Zhou <jencce.ker...@gmail.com> >>>--- >>> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>>diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig >>>b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig >>>index 9ae7fa8..0b45de0 100644 >>>--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig >>>+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig >>>@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >>> config LUSTRE_FS >>> tristate "Lustre file system client support" >>>- depends on STAGING && INET && m >>>+ depends on STAGING && INET && BLOCK && m >>> select LNET >>> select CRYPTO >>> select CRYPTO_CRC32 >> >> The Lustre client does not need a block device - it is a network >> filesystem. >> The one piece of code that is relevant here relates to a >>Lustre-optimized >> "loop" device that bypasses the VFS, data copying, and DLM locking for >>use >> by swap and such. It would be better instead to make that code >>conditional >> and add a new CONFIG_LUSTRE_LLOOP or similar, and only make that part >> dependent on BLOCK. > >This makes sence. I noticed that this patch has gone into Greg's tree, >so a coming patch based on this patch is cool? That would be fine, thanks. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Lustre Software Architect Intel High Performance Data Division
