Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 13709] New: b2c2-flexcop: no frontend driver found for this B2C2/FlexCop adapter w/ kernel-2.6.31-rc2

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Trent Piepho <xyzzy@speakeasy.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > (switched to email.  Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the
> > bugzilla web interface).
> >
> >
> > Guys, this is reportedly a post-2.6.30 regression - I'll ask Rafael to
> > add it to the regression tracking list.
> >
> > btw, does the flexcop driver have a regular maintainer?  Or someone who
> > wants to volunteer?  MAINTAINERS is silent about it..
> 
> I produced a patch that fixed this problem over a month ago,
> http://www.linuxtv.org/hg/~tap/v4l-dvb/rev/748c762fcf3e

Where is that patch now?  It isn't present in linux-next.

If it needs to be resent, please cc me on it?


Also, is there any way of avoiding this?

+#define FE_SUPPORTED(fe) (defined(CONFIG_DVB_##fe) || \
+ (defined(CONFIG_DVB_##fe##_MODULE) && defined(MODULE)))

That's just way too tricky.  It expects all versions of the
preprocessor to be correctly implemented (unlikely) and there are other
tools like unifdef which want to parse kernel #defines.

otoh the trick does produce a nice result and doing it any other way
(which I can think of) would make a mess.

> Maybe it should go into 2.6.31?

It depends on the seriousness of the regression (number of people
affected, whether there's a workaround, etc) and upon the riskiness of
the patch.

But sure, we don't want regressions and letting one be released when we
already know about it and have a fix would be bad!

If the patch is judged too risky at this time, there might be a simpler
one, perhaps.

Or just revert whichever patch broke things.  Your changelog describes
this as simply "A recent patch" (bad changelog!) so I am unable to judge this.