On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 05:37:40 +0900,
Johannes Berg wrote:

On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 11:27 +0900, Hajime Tazaki wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/um/Kconfig b/arch/um/Kconfig
index 24c6596260de..5fb6a852d058 100644
--- a/arch/um/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/um/Kconfig

@@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ config UMMODE_LIB

 	select UACCESS_MEMCPY
 	select ARCH_THREAD_STACK_ALLOCATOR
 	select ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER
+	select VFAT_FS
+	select NLS_CODEPAGE_437
+	select NLS_ISO8859_1
+	select BTRFS_FS

That doesn't really seem to make sense - the sample might need it, but
generally LKL doesn't/shouldn't?

I'm trying to understand your comment;
Do you mean that enabling those options in Kconfig doesn't make sense ?

and if you mean the sample as sample code, is the added test case
(e.g., tools/testing/selftests/um/disk.c, which is included in the
same patch) for this purpose ?

-- HAjime