Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>]

On 05/20/2015 03:39 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 10:34 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 08:31 +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 10:27 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 16:42 +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE == KERNEL_VERSION(3,13,11) && UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI < 24)
>>>>
>>>> Now that I look at this again, I'm confused - shouldn't this whole thing
>>>> have a ! in front?
>>>>
>>>
>>> why?
>>> I need this definition only for Ubuntu releases that are below 24.
>>> Canonical ported that starting 24.
>>> What am I missing?
>>
>> But every mainline kernel, say 3.10, also needs it. Also Ubuntu with
>> 3.10, for example.
>>
>
> You are right obviously.

What happens if the user is not running a Ubuntu kernel and 
UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI is undefined?

I am really pissed off about Ubuntu's backporting API changes so that testing 
LINUX_VERSION_CODE is no longer sufficient. In fact when someone complains the 
one of the out-of-kernel drivers that I maintain does not build with kernel X.Y, 
I check that version out in mainline, build the driver to make sure the problem 
is not mine, and then tell them to complain to their vendor. I no longer fix 
those problems. I think RHEL is also doing the same kind of thing - at least I 
did get one complaint about a build problem that seemed to be due to an API 
backport. Where do we stop?

Larry