From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1753051AbZKLMKj@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753051AbZKLMKj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:10:39 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753026AbZKLMKi
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:10:38 -0500
Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:58882 "EHLO
	out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753018AbZKLMKg (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:10:36 -0500
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: sysctl tree build failure
References: <20091112184805.1c0720cb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
	<m1ljicp3l0.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
	<20091112191451.d21250f2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
	<m1fx8kp0op.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
	<20091112214706.7c7b3168.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:10:38 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20091112214706.7c7b3168.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Thu\, 12 Nov 2009 21\:47\:06 +1100")
Message-ID: <m1skckaqpt.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=76.21.114.89;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 76.21.114.89
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:26:12 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on in02.mta.xmission.com); Unknown failure
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:11:34 -0800 ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>>
>> Any clue how all_noconfig happened to have CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL set?
>
> CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL defaults to y and only depends on
> CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL which also defaults to y and depends on CONFIG_PROC_FS
> which also defaults to y.  All three are only selectable if
> CONFIG_EMBEDDED is y (which it obviously isn't).

Ah so.  An interesting twist of fate.  Thank you for satisfying my
curiosity.

Eric