On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:31:37 +0300 Pavel Emelyanov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:58:30 +0300 Pavel Emelyanov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
> >>>> register_sysctl_table(sys_table);
> >>>> +#endif
> >>>>
> >>>> dquot_cachep = kmem_cache_create("dquot",
> >>>> sizeof(struct dquot), sizeof(unsigned long) * 4,
> >>> We should avoid the ifdefs around the register_sysctl_table() call.
> >>>
> >>> At present the !CONFIG_SYSCTL implementation of register_sysctl_table() is
> >>> a non-inlined NULL-returning stub. All we have to do is to inline that stub
> >>> then these ifdefs can go away.
> >> What if some code checks for the return value to be not-NULL? In case
> >> CONFIG_SYSCTL=n this code will always think, that the registration failed.
> >
> > The stub function should return success?
>
> Well, I think yes. If some functionality is turned off, then the
> caller should think that everything is going fine (or he should
> explicitly removes the call to it with some other ifdef).
>
> At least this is true for stubs that return the error code, not
> the pointer. E.g. copy_semundo() always returns success if SYSVIPC
> is off, or namespaces cloning routines act in a similar way.
>
> Thus I though, that routines, that return pointers should better
> report that everything is OK (somehow) to reduce the number of
> "helpers" in the outer code. No?
>
Dunno. Returning NULL should be OK. If anyone is dereferenceing that
pointer with CONFIG_SYSCTL=n then they might need some attention?
--
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]
