From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] always export sysctl_{r,w}mem_max Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:31:47 -0700 Message-ID: <472278E3.4000909@hp.com> References: <20071026230807.GE30533@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Adrian Bunk , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: Received: from palrel13.hp.com ([156.153.255.238]:36872 "EHLO palrel13.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752308AbXJZXbu (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:31:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes: > > >>This patch fixes the following build error with CONFIG_SYSCTL=n: >> >><-- snip --> >> >>... >>ERROR: "sysctl_rmem_max" [fs/dlm/dlm.ko] undefined! >>ERROR: "sysctl_wmem_max" [drivers/net/rrunner.ko] undefined! >>ERROR: "sysctl_rmem_max" [drivers/net/rrunner.ko] undefined! >>make[2]: *** [__modpost] Error 1 > > > I was going to ask if allowing drivers to increase rmem_max > is something that we want to do. Apparently the road runner > driver has been doing this since the 2.6.12-rc1 when the > git repository starts so this probably isn't a latent bug. Although it does rather sound like a driver writer yanking the rope from the hand's of the sysadmin and hanging him with it rather than letting the sysadmin do it himself. I've seen other drivers' README's suggesting larger mem's but not their sources doing it. rick jones