Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:37:18 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> 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? Message-ID: <CAJ-VmonGoQVPiktO_t7yCJ2uV7nsVs4d4sETwUUWoUwW_VshfQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201201050848.18414.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <CAJ-Vmo=qNu9KpF6kSofychNcjwexFKvAT8bnwd3gVr-VPymN5w@mail.gmail.com> <201201050848.18414.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5 January 2012 05:48, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > [ A bit excessive on the cross-posting? =A0arch@ alone was probably fine = ] I wanted to capture the attention of relevant people, as I don't want to break some subtle setup that I'm not at all aware of. > NFS doesn't actually use them curently, only UFS and ZFS do. =A0Unfortuna= tely > we've yet to make it possible to compile ZFS into the kernel, so you can'= t > make the sys/conf/files bits completely accurate yet (it would be nice to > let folks who don't need FFS for a ZFS-only system remove FFS and UFS, bu= t > this would break that): Ok. I'll just test that the GENERIC build works and then commit it. adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmonGoQVPiktO_t7yCJ2uV7nsVs4d4sETwUUWoUwW_VshfQ>