On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 00:04 +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > On 10.06.2012 05:41, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:42 +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > >> On 08.06.2012 14:40, Ian Kent wrote: > >>> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 11:06 +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > >>>> Loading autofs module is #ifdef'ed in the source, so > >>>> there is no need to check for /proc (which is only used > >>>> to load module) or modprobe. Both modprobe and /proc > >>>> are always in the fixed location so there's no need to > >>>> check for these to start with. > >>> > >>> Looking at the source I'm not sure it's such a good idea to make the > >>> module load change yet. > >> > >> This patch changes nothing, it only #ifdef's a code which has been > >> unused for a long time already, and removes confugure checks for > >> stuff used in that code. > > > > It's not worth wasting time disusing this since it should certainly be a > > low risk change. > > Removing an unused function is a zero-risk change. > > > Could you add a check for /proc being mounted in main() somewhere before > > it forks and I'll commit it. > > Well, checking for /proc (better to check /proc/mounts -- the actual > file it uses) is a different, unrelated change which actually does > change the behavour, such things are usually done in separate patches. > I don't see why do you want to have two completely unrelated changes > in one patch? Then send two patches. > > Thanks, > > /mjt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
