From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:26:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:26:44 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([212.34.181.86]:5394 "EHLO verein.lst.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:26:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:35:05 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kai Germaschewski Subject: Re: [PATCH] more procfs bits for !CONFIG_MMU Message-ID: <20030102173505.B11900@lst.de> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kai Germaschewski References: <20030102000522.A6137@lst.de> <20030101235842.A3044@infradead.org> <20030102162956.GB956@mars.ravnborg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20030102162956.GB956@mars.ravnborg.org>; from sam@ravnborg.org on Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 05:29:56PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 05:29:56PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > New Makefile: > proc-y := proc_mmu.o > proc-$(CONFIG_MMU) := proc_nommu.o > Wouldn't this add proc_mmu.o even if CONFIG_MMU is not y?