Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:14:05PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even
> > large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used,
> > i.e. whether there shouldn't
Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:14:05PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even
large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used,
i.e. whether there shouldn't #ifdef
Thanks for catching this!
>>> Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 21.12.07 03:30 >>>
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:14:05PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even
> large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used,
>
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:14:05PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even
> large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used,
> i.e. whether there shouldn't #ifdef CONFIG_xxx get added.
> -static struct
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:14:05PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even
large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used,
i.e. whether there shouldn't #ifdef CONFIG_xxx get added.
-static struct
Thanks for catching this!
Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] 21.12.07 03:30
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:14:05PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even
large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used,
i.e.
6 matches
Mail list logo