11.06.2013 21:23, M. Mohan Kumar wrote: > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> 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... 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
