Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:35:56 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.20-mm1: PTRACE=y, PROC_FS=n compile error
Message-ID: <20070222033556.GA9027@infradead.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20070220000816.GM13958@stusta.de> <20070221101510.C48121800E4@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070221101510.C48121800E4@magilla.sf.frob.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 992
Lines: 21

On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 02:15:10AM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > This causes the following compile error with CONFIG_PTRACE=y, 
> > CONFIG_PROC_FS=n:
> 
> Bah.  I moved ptrace_may_attach to fs/proc/base.c so that CONFIG_PTRACE=n
> could just omit kernel/ptrace.c entirely and still get the function for
> fs/proc/base.c to use (and because that uses it many more times than ptrace
> does).  I'd forgotten that procfs could be disabled, since noone ever does.
> 
> What do people suggest?  It's not a very big function.

Put it into some other place in kernel/ that's always build, e.g.
kernel/sys.c and while you;re at it please give it a name that doesn't
include the word ptrace.

I remember mentioning that in my long utrace review mail.. :)
-
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/