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/