Re: [PATCH 0/2] UBI(FS): fixing IS_ENABLED() usage + backport trees

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1317 bytes --]

On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 16:31 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Artem,
> 
> It looks like your ubifs-v3.3.git tree does not compile successfully. I
> think there are two issues:
> 
>  1) IS_ENABLED() should be used with the CONFIG_ prefix. i.e.,
>  IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS) instead of IS_ENABLED(DEBUG_FS)

Thanks, I've pushed this to linux-ubifs.git. I'll let is sit there for
few days and get exposed to linux-next and then send a pull request to
Linus.

> 
>  2) IS_ENABLED() has changed some between v3.3 and when this commit was
>  originally integrated in mainline, so it masks a compile error in the
>  mainline version

Not sure what you mean. It was introduced in 3.1
(2a11c8ea20bf850b3a2c60db8c2e7497d28aba99), so I have to back-port it
older ubifs backport trees.

> This patch series addresses issue 1. I suggest that this be backported to
> the appropriate UBIFS tree to solve some build failures. But I think issue
> 2 may still be a problem, so perhaps the mainline IS_ENABLED() fix should
> be backported as well?

I guess you are talking about commit
69349c2dc01c489eccaa4c472542c08e370c6d7e ? I'll port it too, thanks.

> BTW, there may be more than one backport tree that fails; I just tested
> v3.3.

I'll check.

Thanks!

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]