From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965080AbVIFBjL (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:39:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965081AbVIFBjL (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:39:11 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([216.27.176.166]:23523 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965080AbVIFBjJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:39:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:38:58 -0700 From: Matt Mackall To: Alistair John Strachan Cc: Sam Ravnborg , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [GIT PATCHES] kbuild updates Message-ID: <20050906013858.GI27787@waste.org> References: <20050905174150.GA17923@mars.ravnborg.org> <200509052035.14156.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> <20050905201345.GA26106@mars.ravnborg.org> <200509052232.04135.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200509052232.04135.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:32:04PM +0100, Alistair John Strachan wrote: > On Monday 05 September 2005 21:13, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:35:14PM +0100, Alistair John Strachan wrote: > > > On Monday 05 September 2005 18:41, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > Hi Linus. > > > > > > > > kbuild updates as accumulated over the last few months. > > > > All patches has been in -mm in one or several versions. > > > > > > > > Most noteworthy: > > > > 1) -Wundef added to CFLAGS. This is the cause of several new warnings, > > > > which for the most part has been fixed for now. > > > > 2) "PREEMPT" in UTS_VERSION. So we complain when dealing > > > > with modules compiled for a wrong kernel > > > > > > How is this different from the preempt module vermagic? > > > > > > ~$ modinfo agpgart | grep vermagic > > > vermagic: 2.6.13 preempt gcc-4.0 > > > > My bad. Adding PREEMT to UTS_VERSION makes it visible in uname -a. > > > > I see. I can understand adding an extraversion for SMP and experimental > patches (like Ingo's RT work), but why is it useful to differentiate (by > name) between preempt and non-preempt kernels? Do distributors wish to > package both in parallel? I created the patch so that it would show up in oops reports and elsewhere and avoid the inevitable question "was this a preempt kernel?" -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.