Re: [PATCH 1/2] entry: Fix CONFIG_SECCOMP assumption

[Thomas Gleixner]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > The __secure_computing() callback only exists on CONFIG_SECCOMP=y,
>> 
>> No. There is a stub function for the SECCOMP=n case.
>
> Which was buggy:
>
>   static inline int __secure_computing(void) { return 0; }

Yes. I screwed that up and fixing that is the right thing to do.