From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f47.google.com ([209.85.218.47]:35286 "EHLO mail-oi0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754131AbbETPae (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2015 11:30:34 -0400 Received: by oign205 with SMTP id n205so38783748oig.2 for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 08:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <555CA897.4010606@lwfinger.net> (sfid-20150520_173041_428688_BF5D2835) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:30:31 -0500 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Grumbach, Emmanuel" , "johannes@sipsolutions.net" CC: "backports@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13 References: <1432042936-23733-1-git-send-email-emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> (sfid-20150519_154230_230935_983C6CAB) <1432110463.2174.2.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1432110664.5612.6.camel@intel.com> <1432110893.2174.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1432111194.8314.1.camel@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1432111194.8314.1.camel@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: backports-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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