Re: [PATCH linux-next v2] mpls: don't build sysctl related code when sysctl is disabled

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Matteo Croce <mcroce@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next v2] mpls: don't build sysctl related code when sysctl is disabled
From: David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 12:46:16 -0600
Cc: netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAGnkfhx_h1d6k+wZk7xZXnECDZ+Z+oLw9zAWvDFRe+mHLksszA@mail.gmail.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1

On 6/7/19 12:20 PM, Matteo Croce wrote:
> This would explain why so much code went under the #ifdef.
> Should we select or depend on sysctl maybe?

I think so

References:
- [PATCH linux-next v2] mpls: don't build sysctl related code when sysctl is disabled
  - From: Matteo Croce
- Re: [PATCH linux-next v2] mpls: don't build sysctl related code when sysctl is disabled
  - From: David Ahern
- Re: [PATCH linux-next v2] mpls: don't build sysctl related code when sysctl is disabled
  - From: Matteo Croce

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH linux-next v2] mpls: don't build sysctl related code when sysctl is disabled
Next by thread: [PATCH v2 00/19] btrfs zoned block device support
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Ext4 Filesystem] [Union Filesystem] [Filesystem Testing] [Ceph Users] [Ecryptfs] [AutoFS] [Kernel Newbies] [Share Photos] [Security] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux Cachefs] [Reiser Filesystem] [Linux RAID] [Samba] [Device Mapper] [CEPH Development]