Re: [PATCH] more CONFIG

netdev

Re: [PATCH] more CONFIG_NET removals

To:	jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:	Re: [PATCH] more CONFIG_NET removals
From:	"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:	willy@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<Mutt.LNX.4.44.0306242158250.6102-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:	<20030620112504.GM24357@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Mutt.LNX.4.44.0306242158250.6102-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

   From: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:01:25 +1000 (EST)

   Some of the net/compat.c functions (e.g. compat_sys_setsockopt) are 
   still needed to allow the kernel to build.  Perhaps use cond_syscall() for 
   these?

Agreed.  You can't get rid of net/compat.o so easily.

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[PATCH] more CONFIG_NET removals, Matthew Wilcox Re: [PATCH] more CONFIG_NET removals, James Morris Re: [PATCH] more CONFIG_NET removals, David S. Miller <=

Previous by Date:	Re: Linux-2.5.73 + e100, Udo A. Steinberg
Next by Date:	Re: [PATCH] IPV6: Fix large packet length check, David S. Miller
Previous by Thread:	Re: [PATCH] more CONFIG_NET removals, James Morris
Next by Thread:	[PATCH] IPV6: use macro for maximum payload length, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]