Messages in this thread | | | From | (Alan Cox) | Subject | Re: bogous binfmt_misc patch in 2.2.0-pre1 | Date | Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:39:59 +0000 (GMT) |
| |
> Could you please revert the patch you got for binfmt_misc? > Its wrong as it leaves binfmt_misc in a completely unusuable > state if CONFIG_PROC_FS is not set. (patch to revert the > changes and one pending change from me (remove stale variable) > is attached)
Its right because it doesn't even compile otherwise.
> Although there is no chance of misconfiguration if one reads > the Configure.help entry, to prevent even silly misconfiguration
People don't 8(
> you may consider patch #2, that makes CONFIG_PROC_FS depend > on CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC (yes, I dont like the order, too - but > there is no way to make CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC depend on CONFIG_PROC_FS),
Michael Chastain and others have been talking about this - there is a possible 'solution' for 2.3.x - which is to add a
requires CONFIG_something CONFIG_somethingelse
at the end of the scripts. Its just a bit close to 2.2 final to do this.
> or alternatively patch #3, that makes binfmt_misc compile > conditionaly on CONFIG_PROC_FS (i.e. it leaves the user without > binfmt_misc, if he/she was unable to select CONFIG_PROC_FS).
That seems sensible. You could also compile it printk("PROCfs support is required") return -ENXIO for PROC_FS=n if that seems better
Alan
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |