From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753638AbXLDL6h (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:58:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752642AbXLDL6a (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:58:30 -0500 Received: from sacred.ru ([62.205.161.221]:58673 "EHLO sacred.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752557AbXLDL6a (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:58:30 -0500 Message-ID: <475540D9.9010109@openvz.org> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:58:17 +0300 From: Pavel Emelyanov User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7][QUOTA] Move sysctl management code under ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL References: <475008F5.3000506@openvz.org> <475009FA.20409@openvz.org> <20071203133844.40804dab.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <475516B6.5000504@openvz.org> <20071204012301.4349bbd0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47551E79.6080802@openvz.org> <20071204014549.8fe47f7f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071204034836.47211436.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20071204034836.47211436.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (sacred.ru [62.205.161.221]); Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:58:17 +0300 (MSK) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [snip] >> We do have some current code in the network stack that fails miserably >> when register_sysctl_table returns NULL, and there are explicit >> checks for that. > > So that code would be failing today with CONFIG_SYSCTL=n? Unless the > failing code is itself under #ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL, in which case we don't > need to change anything? Exactly! If the code checks for the return value it won't work with CONFIG_SYSCTL=n, if it dies not - it may happily use the sysctl stub and avoid extra ifdefs. But this difference looks clumsy :( Thanks, Pavel