-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Friday 2008-05-02 18:26, Jeff Mahoney wrote: >>> To the best of my knowledge, the AppArmor patches are arch and flavour >>> independent. If CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR exists, then the AA code is >>> compiled. This is certainly the case for Hardy. Neither Kees or myself >>> are aware of any reason why it won't also hold true for Intrepid. >> Grumble. The issue isn't whether AA is enabled, it's whether it's >> present in the source. Patching the source with AA modifies a bunch of >> core VFS function prototypes. CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR won't exist if AA >> isn't enabled, but the prototypes will have changed anyway. > > So... add an invisible CONFIG_HAVE_APPARMOR, much like > CONFIG_X86_HAVE_CMPXCHG (or whatever it's called), and test for that. > As long as you are not in the mainline kernel, every hack is > forgiven. That'll work moving forward, but btrfs also supports older releases. - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkgbVv0ACgkQLPWxlyuTD7JLrACfUKFXwh/nYuwDw7oT3lFLs/E7 cNQAn2LQKNJkIc/SDQJJ2ykuvYAg++D8 =1Ami -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
