[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200911061310.02785.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:10:02 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] sysctl: Separate the binary sysctl logic into it's own file.
On Friday 06 November 2009, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> writes:
>
> > Am Freitag 06 November 2009 01:41:44 schrieb Eric W. Biederman:
> >> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> >>
> >> In preparation for more invasive cleanups separate the core
> >> binary sysctl logic into it's own file.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> >
> > Hmm, with your patches on Linus git I get the following on s390:
> >
> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c: In function 'SYSC_sysctl':
> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c:126: error: implicit declaration of function
> > 'lock_kernel'
> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c:129: error: implicit declaration of function
> > 'unlock_kernel'
>
> Bah. A missing smp_lock.h.
BTW, there is a patch in the kill-the-BKL tree to push down the BKL
further into the sysctl handlers. It may be a good idea to put that
into your tree, or to redo the same thing there differently, since
you already have a patch series touching this area.
Arnd <><
--
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