Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 24 Sep 2001 09:32:22 -0700 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Magic SysRq alternate fix register functions |
| |
Crutcher Dunnavant wrote: > > ++ 21/09/01 18:22 -0400 - Crutcher Dunnavant: > > I'm not sure if this is sufficient. The low level interfaces need to be > > exposed, and if we are not expecting modules to pay attention to the > > CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ setting, then the all of these interfaces need to be > > overridden. > > > > However, do we even need this #ifdef CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ block at all? > > What does it matter if modules register or unregister events, if they > > cannot be called? > > > > The old code only zaped the enable if sysrq was not defined, and that is > > what I'm doing in the table. Some real changes would be neccessary to > > actually drop out the whole system. > > > > There is also no real reason to try and no-op these functions for speed, > > as they are trivial and FAR outside of the main call path. > > > > So the way to go I see here is: > > a) allow the registration functions to always be defined. > > and either: > > b) handle the return failure in the __sysrq_XXX functions themselves, > > c) or not. > > A 'dont-close-it' patch is attached. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Name: patch-2.4.10-pre13-sysrq_register > patch-2.4.10-pre13-sysrq_register Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > Description: patch-2.4.10-pre13-sysrq_register
Yep, that certainly fixes the API when CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ is not defined, which is what I wanted to see.
~Randy - 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/
|  |