Undocumented configuration options

[Joel Sherrill]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:39 AM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:

> On 30/03/2020 15:35, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> What about the
>>
>> CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_DEVFS
>> CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_DOSFS
>> CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_FTPFS
>> CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_IMFS
>> CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_JFFS2
>> CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_NFS
>> CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_RFS
>> CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_TFTPFS
>>
>> configuration options? Is this really something a user should be able to
>> define?
>>
>
> Chris will likely chime in later but I believe these are needed so that
> filesystem type is listed in the set of mountable filesystems.  The mount
> command depends on those settings.
>
> Yes, it depends on the settings, but the CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_*
> options give you an extra level of control. For example, you can enable the
> RFS with:
>
> #define CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_RFS
>
> Optionally, you can fine tune the entry:
>
> #if defined(CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_RFS) \
>   && !defined(CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_RFS)
>   #define CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_RFS \
>     { RTEMS_FILESYSTEM_TYPE_RFS, rtems_rfs_rtems_initialise }
> #endif
>
> I am not sure if this fine tuning is really necessary.
>

Me either. Looks like a way for someone to provide their own
version of the definition which seems in the class of defining your
own Configuration Table structures. And we removed those.

Let's wait for Chris. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20200330/55244ad2/attachment-0001.html>