Remove support for CONFIG_FS_WRITABLE #602
Conversation
Remove references from defconfig files, README.txt files and a couple of uses in .c files
Remove support for CONFIG_FS_WRITABLE from some MMC drivers.
Remove documentation of commands conditioned on CONFIG_FS_WRITABLE
The mktemp family of functions are built unconditionally now (but not necessarily included in any build).
|
@xiaoxiang781216 This is currently failing the same sim checks that is blocking your PR. However, if we get past that, I don't think it will be able to build the checks. I will verify that any failed configurations work on my PC, but I do not expected the nutx/ changes to build correctly without the apps/ changes or vice versa. What do you recommend? |
|
@xiaoxiang781216 yes, I verfied on apps/ PR 131 that the failing builds workd perfectly will when both the apps/ and nuttx/ changes are in place. How, do you propose that we verify this? |
Let's bypass the precheck system before it can handle the PR relationship in apps/nuttx. |
And also CONFIG_FS_READABLE.
This resolves issue #484 and is a companion to the PR 131 in incubator_nuttx_apps. Per Issue 484:
This is kind of a useless configuration variable that occurs in many places and adds a lot of complexity and makes debug a lot more difficult.
It makes debug more difficult because it is not consistently set and requires a lot of debug time before you finally figure out "I need to set CONFIG_FS_WRITABLE.
In most places affected by CONFIG_FS_WRITABLE, the configuration option is stupid: Who needs read-only MMC or read-only SmartFS. Just not a useful thing. And many places that do need CONFIG_FS_WRITABLE do not automatically set it. Like drivers/mtd/ftl.c. In that case, you can debug for most of the day before you finally figure out why the you can't access flash via character driver (which is a really common configuration for resource limited platforms).
It is hard to imagine a platform that supports a file system but has no writing enabled. I could imagine a system with only ROMFS or only CROMFS. But that is really about it and, in those cased, CONFIG_FS_WRITABLE has no effect. I am not aware of any such case, but that would be the only kind of platform that would suffer from the change.
But my opinion is that in the bigger picture, NuttX would be cleaner, less complex, and more usable with CONFIG_FS_WRITABLE removed.
CONFIG_FS_REABABLE was also becaue it does nothing.