On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:44 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 17:32 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >>>> I assume nobody cares? > >>> You assume wrongly. Patch NAKed... > >> Do you have a use case in mind? (Just curious.) > > > > Embedded systems often compile without sysctl and/or procfs support. Why > > shouldn't they be able to run an NFS client with RPCSEC_GSS? > > OK, it looks like the patch that adds the "depends on SYSCTL" to the > LOCKD entry will cause NFS-enabled builds to break if CONFIG_SYSCTL is > disabled, thanks to the recent addition of nlmclnt_init and nlmclnt_done. > > Probably the better solution in this case is to ifdef out the > register_sysctl() call in lockd if CONFIG_SYSCTL isn't set. In the long > run, should we make it possible to build the NFS client without lockd?
In the long run, we really ought to try to make it possible to build a NFSv3-only, or a NFSv4-only client, so yes... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
