Re: RFC: Get rid of CONFIG_PROC_FS, was Re: "CONFIG_PROCFS" problem in
Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@pobox.com)
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:20:16 -0400
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> Jeff Garzik had the wisdom to write:
> JG> When you include proc_fs.h you should not need _any_ ifdefs at all.
> JG> Inlined no-op versions of the procfs API functions are substituted when
>
> Not completely true. The functions are stubbed, but things like proc_root
> and the inode-operations aren't. Although Alan fixed the ugliest part in
> 2.1.13x, CONFIG_PROC_FS is still very ugly, and a lot of ifdef's are needed.
If you use {create,remove}_proc_entry as many new drivers do, or use the
new proc_driver_[un]register interface, then you don't have to worry
about CONFIG_PROC_FS being absent.
Regards,
Jeff
--
Custom driver development | Never worry about theory as long
Open source programming | as the machinery does what it's
| supposed to do. -- R. A. Heinlein
-
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/