From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan  6 21:30:33 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46FE1065676;
	Fri,  6 Jan 2012 21:30:33 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com
	[209.85.212.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271858FC16;
	Fri,  6 Jan 2012 21:30:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so2468820vbb.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:30:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
	:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=7i8L0JobRQXi8fpSUb/2zL5mr/eigMvIQmnjRiCPRqI=;
	b=DzZQTnzId4Lpls/2IaBjYGlBnvAdJ/5lxyqsnFmGdhduKjvt4B1f4hcVMjc1blwcre
	haPiqY19K2Yh2vixvPGfSr6wA5wtIU7pmRmWOlUTFyvJq94i/6ZtjuEH+NIXhhShAdLq
	HujoLAtCQlCTm93bpFuQGqUV2xSy4MfcL89ME=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.24.35 with SMTP id r3mr3881435vdf.81.1325885431095; Fri, 06
	Jan 2012 13:30:31 -0800 (PST)
Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.36.5 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:30:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <86ty4a8mc3.fsf@ds4.des.no>
References: <CAJ-Vmo=qNu9KpF6kSofychNcjwexFKvAT8bnwd3gVr-VPymN5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<86ty4a8mc3.fsf@ds4.des.no>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:30:31 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: VrRk9ZViKHedD6PwnMzfkv_i4i4
Message-ID: <CAJ-VmomAX7cBuOfUgEW0UXcQ87Zie1_3Oad2rir5v97iEhKuCw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>,
	freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible to make subr_acl_nfs4 and subr_acl_posix1e
	disabled?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:30:33 -0000

2012/1/5 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no>:
> Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> writes:
>> Since I'm not using NFS or UFS_ACL, I wondered if that code required.
>> It turns out I can just build a kernel with those two disabled.
>>
>> Would it be possible to remove them from "standard" and make them
>> optional? Or is there a reason to keep it in base?
>
> I would be very annoyed if it were no longer possible to netboot
> GENERIC...

I don't want to break that. :) I Just don't want to compile it in
unless I'm using NFS/ZFS, and on my 4MB flash boards I'm not booting
w/ NFS compiled in statically..


Adrian