[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200810121909.53233.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:09:52 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: "Steve French" <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc: "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...hat.com>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"samba-technical@...ts.samba.org" <samba-technical@...ts.samba.org>,
"linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org"
<linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org>, cooldavid@...ldavid.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-cifs-client] Fwd: [PATCH] Fix CIFS compilation with CONFIG_KEYS unset
On Sunday, 12 of October 2008, Steve French wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:40:39 -0500
> >> "Steve French" <smfrench@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, I like Adrian/Rafael's fix better. I think we should avoid
> >> cluttering up the code with #ifdef's where possible. key_put() already
> >> is a no-op when CONFIG_KEYS is disabled. We might as well do the same
> >> thing with key_revoke().
> > I don't think it matters much - but we probably shouldn't be
> > overriding global functions.
>
> To clarify, I like fixing it in keys.h better than overriding it in
> cifs, but in the meantime we need an ifdef in cifs until keys.h
> changes.
Well, adding an empty definition for key_revoke() in the !CONFIG_KEYS case
makes sense anyway IMO.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists