Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> writes: > 11.06.2013 21:23, M. Mohan Kumar wrote: >> Peter Maydell <[email protected]> writes: >> >> How about this approach? > > Well, this is definitely wrong :) > >> -if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then >> - if test "$virtfs" != no ; then >> + >> +if test "$virtfs" != no ; then >> + if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then >> if test "$cap" = yes && test "$linux" = yes && test "$attr" = yes ; then >> virtfs=yes >> tools="$tools fsdev/virtfs-proxy-helper\$(EXESUF)" >> @@ -3415,6 +3416,12 @@ if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then >> fi >> virtfs=no >> fi >> + else >> + if test "$virtfs" = yes; then >> + error_exit "VirtFS is supported only on Linux and requires softmmu" >> + else >> + virtfs=no >> + fi >> fi >> if [ "$linux" = "yes" -o "$bsd" = "yes" -o "$solaris" = "yes" ] ; then >> if [ "$guest_agent" = "yes" ]; then > > Now this "if [ $linux..." test is only checked > if $virtfs != no. Before, it was checked when > $softmmu != no... My bad :(, I missed check for guest_agent inside softmmu case.
> > FWIW, I still don't understand what Peter Maydell dislikes > in a simplest case I posted initially, where we merely ignore > (disable) virtfs in case !softmmu. We should probably do the > same for alot of other features which makes sense only if > softmmu==yes, and omit many configure tests which are still > done even if softmmu is disabled, but that's a different > patch for sure. Maube we should separate out this last linux|bsd|solaris > test and add another if softmmu there, for readability, so that > disabling of virtfs will be closer to other virtfs tests. > > I applied my initial patch to our debian tree to fix build > failure for now, because else it fails during build. > > Thanks, > > /mjt
