Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] CIFS: SMBD: fix configurations with INFINIBAND=m | From | Stefan Metzmacher <> | Date | Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:01:19 +0100 |
| |
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] | |