From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 8 22:58:57 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4264A106566C; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:58:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E438FC0C; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:58:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iadj38 with SMTP id j38so8122654iad.13 for ; Sun, 08 Jan 2012 14:58:56 -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; bh=mtfRRB6QcW9ZHExqisZqZGBLTyJAdyG3HY4I6xndYl8=; b=f8JCaaNBmZW6I7WKZvFqZcZU/kk/2R8QhCQPuc4hO9TbfY90gFfcNe3LxdwdDZeKsa 2ItTAGfYcvEKop4y5vJUVYgH1vsOgUgsXC3FbwQIHDVHaAu29EAs0RgT6Gl5mScrpS2R 5I0K6lJyI91MhJRks+6DDfxy7Xu7d8RXUHsE8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.190.196 with SMTP id gs4mr16712731igc.14.1326063536504; Sun, 08 Jan 2012 14:58:56 -0800 (PST) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.42.243.65 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 14:58:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120108104330.GC1674@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <201201080055.q080tMlJ063808@svn.freebsd.org> <20120108104330.GC1674@garage.freebsd.pl> Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 14:58:56 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: wqJVW4mIpusncQ7KDB5RuY8vzRg Message-ID: From: Adrian Chadd To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r229800 - head/sys/conf X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:58:57 -0000 On 8 January 2012 02:43, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > If someone is actually using GENERIC kernel. This change will break all > my system next time I upgrade. Adding UFS_ACL option to the kernel > config to make ZFS kernel module to work doesn't sound very intuitive. > > I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but we really need to > find better way to do this. Until then, could you back it out? I'd rather find a cleaner solution - it's pulling in code which just isn't being used if you aren't using UFS_ACL or ZFS. How about wrapping those two up in a module which zfs can register a dependency on? Adrian