Hi Andrzej,
Your patch puts the stuff back (essentially) to how it used to be. Here is
the extract from the very original BFS patch of ages ago:
+if [ "$CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL" = "y" ]; then
+ tristate 'BFS filesystem (read only) support (EXPERIMENTAL)'
CONFIG_BFS_FS
+ if [ "$CONFIG_BFS_FS" != "n" ]; then
+ bool ' BFS filesystem write support (DANGEROUS)'
CONFIG_BFS_FS_WRITE
+ fi
+fi
So, since someone modified it to use dep_bool perhaps they had a reason to
do so? There is no point to change A -> B and then B -> A, I thought?
Regards.
------
Tigran A. Aivazian | http://www.sco.com
Escalations Research Group | tel: +44-(0)1923-813796
Santa Cruz Operation Ltd | http://www.ocston.org/~tigran
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote:
> No. It is (according to current standard) misuse of dep_bool.
> Look in my postings to l-k with subj: "2.3.41 config: suggested [PATCH]"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:28 EST