From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43C765E0.4030407@domain.hid> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:33:36 +0100 From: Wolfgang Grandegger MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: Xenomai broken on Linux 2.4 References: <20060113011449.E32C7353CCD@atlas.denx.de> In-Reply-To: <20060113011449.E32C7353CCD@atlas.denx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wolfgang Denk Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Philippe, > > in message <43C6D2F5.2050607@domain.hid> you wrote: > >>We try to find a way to wrap class_device_create properly depending on the kernel >>version Xeno is compiled against. The parent device class argument in this call >>(2nd in order) seems to show up in 2.6.15 for kernel.org, but 2.6.14-denx-git has >>it too. So we have a problem relying on the version sublevel. > > > I see. Well, I feel honored, but the reference in such cases should > always be Linus' tree (i. e. the "official" kernel.org tree). Xenomai > cannot and should not have to be considerate of all the N vendor > kernel trees that exist out there in the wild... > > And if some user should use our old 2.6.14 tree and run into problems > we can just tell him to use current code - so no problem here, > either. > > Please use kernel.org as reference (and remember that decision in > case other vendors should come urging you). Philippe, for some (yet) unknown reasons the trees are not in sync but they should in respect to include/linux/device.h. Well, lets simply ignore this problem for Xenomai. Thanks. Wolfgang. > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk >