On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 15:52 -0400, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> 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.
AFS isn't even using it... after all it's not even exported.
-
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/
[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]
