lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] CIFS: SMBD: fix configurations with INFINIBAND=m
From
Date
Am 19.12.2017 um 11:56 schrieb Arnd Bergmann via samba-technical:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>> Hi Arnd,
>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/Kconfig b/fs/cifs/Kconfig
>>> index 500fd69fb58b..3bfc55c08bef 100644
>>> --- a/fs/cifs/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/fs/cifs/Kconfig
>>> @@ -199,6 +199,7 @@ config CIFS_SMB311
>>> config CIFS_SMB_DIRECT
>>> bool "SMB Direct support (Experimental)"
>>> depends on CIFS && INFINIBAND
>>> + depends on CIFS=m || INFINIBAND=y
>>> help
>>> Enables SMB Direct experimental support for SMB 3.0, 3.02 and 3.1.1.
>>> SMB Direct allows transferring SMB packets over RDMA. If unsure,
>>
>> Is this really correct? Should CIFS_SMB_DIRECT be allowed with:
>>
>> CIFS=n and INFINIBAND=y ???
>> or
>> CIFS=m and INFINIBAND=n ???
>>
>> I guess a more complex logic should be used here
>> or am I missing something?
>
> The two ones you listed are prohibited by the existing
> 'depends on CIFS && INFINIBAND' dependency.
>
> We could rephrase the dependency as
>
> depends on (CIFS=y && INFINIBAND=y) || \
> (CIFS=m && INFINIBAND=y) || \
> (CIFS=m && INFINIBAND=m)
>
> which has the same effect as
>
> depends on CIFS && INFINIBAND
> depends on CIFS=m || INFINIBAND=y
>
> but I don't think that adds any clarity.

Thanks for the clarification!

I somehow assumed the patch has been:


- depends on CIFS && INFINIBAND
+ depends on CIFS=m || INFINIBAND=y

instead of:
depends on CIFS && INFINIBAND
+ depends on CIFS=m || INFINIBAND=y

metze

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-19 12:01    [W:0.060 / U:8.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site