Re: [PATCH] CIFS: SMBD: fix configurations with INFINIBAND=m

[Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1656 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]