Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] let BLK_DEV_UB depend on USB_STORAGE=n

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:49:00PM -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 02:07:07PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 03:40:31AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 04:31:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > > I've already seen people crippling their usb-storage driver with 
> > > > > enabling BLK_DEV_UB - and I doubt the warning in the help text added 
> > > > > after 2.6.9 will fix all such problems.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is there except for kernel size any good reason for using BLK_DEV_UB 
> > > > > instead of USB_STORAGE?
> > > > 
> > > > You don't want to use the scsi layer?  You like the stability of it at
> > > > times?  :)
> > > > 
> > > > > If not, I'd suggest the patch below to let BLK_DEV_UB depend
> > > > > on EMBEDDED.
> > > > 
> > > > No, it's good for non-embedded boxes too.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > My current understanding is:
> > > - BLK_DEV_UB supports a subset of what USB_STORAGE can support
> > > - for an average user, there's no reason to enable BLK_DEV_UB
> > > - if you really know what you are doing, there might be several reasons
> > >   why you might want to use BLK_DEV_UB
> > 
> > I have been running with just the code portion of this patch for a while
> > now, with good results (no Kconfig changes.)
> > 
> > Pete and Matt, do you mind me applying the following portion of the
> > patch to the kernel tree?
> 
> I have no objection.

Ok, I've commited the change to my trees, thanks.

greg k-h