From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Mahoney Subject: Re: Btrfs v0.14 Released Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 14:01:33 -0400 Message-ID: <481B56FD.9020807@suse.com> References: <200804291601.32945.chris.mason@oracle.com> <200805020852.51125.chris.mason@oracle.com> <200805021034.08358.chris.mason@oracle.com> <481B3C0E.502@tpi.com> <481B409A.2070607@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tim Gardner , Chris Mason , jeffschroeder@computer.org, Tim Gardner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, John Johansen To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Friday 2008-05-02 18:26, Jeff Mahoney wrote: >>> To the best of my knowledge, the AppArmor patches are arch and flavour >>> independent. If CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR exists, then the AA code is >>> compiled. This is certainly the case for Hardy. Neither Kees or myself >>> are aware of any reason why it won't also hold true for Intrepid. >> Grumble. The issue isn't whether AA is enabled, it's whether it's >> present in the source. Patching the source with AA modifies a bunch of >> core VFS function prototypes. CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR won't exist if AA >> isn't enabled, but the prototypes will have changed anyway. > > So... add an invisible CONFIG_HAVE_APPARMOR, much like > CONFIG_X86_HAVE_CMPXCHG (or whatever it's called), and test for that. > As long as you are not in the mainline kernel, every hack is > forgiven. That'll work moving forward, but btrfs also supports older releases. - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkgbVv0ACgkQLPWxlyuTD7JLrACfUKFXwh/nYuwDw7oT3lFLs/E7 cNQAn2LQKNJkIc/SDQJJ2ykuvYAg++D8 =1Ami -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----