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: [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: [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