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

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.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
    • From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
    • From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
    • From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: reiser4 plugins
• Next by Date: Re: reiser4 plugins
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]