Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386

[Jeremy Maitin-Shepard]

Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:31:33PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
>> 
>> > It would probably be better implemented with a more generic mechanism,
>> > but I don't believe anyone is working on that now, so it looks like AFS
>> > will continue to use a special syscall.
>> 
>> We could put an #ifdef CONFIG_AFS into the syscall table definition?
>> That makes it explicit.

> No.  AFS is utterly wrong, and the sooner we make it fail to work the
> better.

Heh, well that is nice, but breaking it will only mean that I and every
other AFS user will have to revert the patch that breaks it;
furthermore, many distributions that provide binary kernels will
probably also have to revert the patch because many of their users will
want to use AFS.

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/