Re: [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-21 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Jan Beulich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 21.12.07 00:05 >>> >>"Jan Beulich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even >>> large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used,

Re: [Jan Beulich] [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-21 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:14:05PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even > > large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used, > > i.e. whether there shouldn't #ifd

[PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c (v2, resend)

2007-12-21 Thread Jan Beulich
Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used, i.e. whether there shouldn't #ifdef CONFIG_xxx get added. (Cut-n-paste mistake corrected, pointed out by Dave Jones.) Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROT

Re: [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-20 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 21.12.07 00:05 >>> >"Jan Beulich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even >> large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used, >> i.e. whether there shouldn't #ifdef CONFIG_x

Re: [Jan Beulich] [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-20 Thread Jan Beulich
Thanks for catching this! >>> Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 21.12.07 03:30 >>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:14:05PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even > large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used, > i

Re: [Jan Beulich] [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-20 Thread Dave Jones
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:14:05PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even > large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used, > i.e. whether there shouldn't #ifdef CONFIG_xxx get added. > -static struct trans

[Jan Beulich] [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-20 Thread Eric W. Biederman
From: "Jan Beulich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used, i.e. whether there shouldn't #ifdef CONFIG_xxx get added. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: "

Re: [PATCH] constify tables in kernel/sysctl_check.c

2007-12-20 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Jan Beulich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Remains the question whether it is intended that many, perhaps even > large, tables are compiled in without ever having a chance to get used, > i.e. whether there shouldn't #ifdef CONFIG_xxx get added. The constification looks good. The file should be