[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional

> From: Christopher Hoover []
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:14:46AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:32:07PM -0700, Christopher Hoover wrote:
> > > Not everyone needs futex support, so it should be optional. This is
> > > needed for small platforms.
> >
> > Looks good. I think you want to disable it unconditionally for
> Good point.
> Here it is again with the config change. The previous version also had
> had a Makefile typo. Plus a cond_syscall for compat_sys_futex to make
> it work for CONFIG_COMPAT (untested), as pointed out by akpm.

How does this affect mm_release() in fork.c? there is a call to sys_futex();
if you make it conditional, will it break anything in there?

Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own
(and my fault)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.055 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site