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

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

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

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 7:14 PM David Ahern wrote: > > On 6/6/19 6:36 PM, Matteo Croce wrote: > > Some sysctl related code and data structures is never referenced > > when CONFIG_SYSCTL is not set. > > While this is usually harmless, it produces a build failure since sysctl > > shared variables

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

On 6/6/19 6:36 PM, Matteo Croce wrote: > Some sysctl related code and data structures is never referenced > when CONFIG_SYSCTL is not set. > While this is usually harmless, it produces a build failure since sysctl > shared variables exists, due to missing sysctl_vals symbol: > > ld:

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

Some sysctl related code and data structures is never referenced when CONFIG_SYSCTL is not set. While this is usually harmless, it produces a build failure since sysctl shared variables exists, due to missing sysctl_vals symbol: ld: net/mpls/af_mpls.o: in function `mpls_platform_labels':