Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386 | | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | | Date | Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:11:02 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 15:52 -0400, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > 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.
AFS isn't even using it... after all it's not even exported.
- 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/
|  |