Message-ID: <A46BBDB345A7D5118EC90002A5072C780CCB0A70@orsmsx116.jf.intel.com>
From: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com>
To: "'Christopher Hoover'" <ch@murgatroid.com>,
       "'Christoph Hellwig'" <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "'torvalds@transmeta.com'" <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 16:33:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1097
Lines: 27


> From: Christopher Hoover [mailto:ch@murgatroid.com]
> 
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:14:46AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:32:07PM -0700, Christopher Hoover wrote:
> > > Not everyone needs futex support, so it should be optional.  This is
> > > needed for small platforms.
> >
> > Looks good.  I think you want to disable it unconditionally for
!CONFIG_MMU.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> Here it is again with the config change.  The previous version also had
> had a Makefile typo.  Plus a cond_syscall for compat_sys_futex to make
> it work for CONFIG_COMPAT (untested), as pointed out by akpm.

How does this affect mm_release() in fork.c? there is a call to sys_futex();
if you make it conditional, will it break anything in there?

I?aky P?rez-Gonz?lez -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own
(and my fault)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/