Messages in this thread | | | From | Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386 | Date | Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:52:50 -0400 |
| |
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:31:33PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: >> >> > It would probably be better implemented with a more generic mechanism, >> > but I don't believe anyone is working on that now, so it looks like AFS >> > will continue to use a special syscall. >> >> We could put an #ifdef CONFIG_AFS into the syscall table definition? >> That makes it explicit.
> No. AFS is utterly wrong, and the sooner we make it fail to work the > better.
Heh, well that is nice, but breaking it will only mean that I and every other AFS user will have to revert the patch that breaks it; furthermore, many distributions that provide binary kernels will probably also have to revert the patch because many of their users will want to use AFS.
-- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |