Re: [Jan Beulich] [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-21 Thread Eric W. Biederman
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

Re: [Jan Beulich] [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-21 Thread Eric W. Biederman
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

Re: [Jan Beulich] [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-20 Thread Jan Beulich
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, >

Re: [Jan Beulich] [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-20 Thread Dave Jones
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

Re: [Jan Beulich] [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-20 Thread Dave Jones
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

Re: [Jan Beulich] [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-20 Thread Jan Beulich
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.