From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933824Ab3AIVEF (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:04:05 -0500 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:45381 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933863Ab3AIVDw (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:03:52 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Tony Luck Cc: Vineet Gupta , Fenghua Yu , Serge Hallyn , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org References: <50ED7B4B.7080603@synopsys.com> <1357742188-8941-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:03:42 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Tony Luck's message of "Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:55:27 -0800") Message-ID: <876236ul01.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX199wkbPIm1OPAv8uqFFlMBfYjAYqqWUXXc= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.207.153.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 3.0 XMDrug1234561 Drug references * 0.1 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -3.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0002] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Tony Luck X-Spam-Relay-Country: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sysctl: Enable IA64 "ignore-unaligned-usertrap" to be used cross-arch X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:46 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Tony Luck writes: > Ok. Queued for 3.9 merge window. It should show up in linux-next in > the next day or two. We'll see if anyone complains about the name > SYSCTL_ARCH_UNALIGN_NO_WARN (every time I touch the Kconfig > bits it seems that there is some other, better way that we do this > now). The other semi-sane way I could see to do this would be to break the code out of kernel/sysctl.c into it's own sysctl table and have the arches that want this sysctl just register it themselves. Shrug. It probably isn't worth the effor right now. Eric