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

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 938 bytes --]

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 09:13 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 16:31 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> >>  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.
> 
> I was referring to
> kconfig: fix IS_ENABLED to not require all options to be defined
> 69349c2dc01c489eccaa4c472542c08e370c6d7e
> which was introduced in 3.4. I think this masks some errors in your
> mainline patch, but when you backport between 3.1..3.4-rc2, you get
> compilation errors.

I think I fixed all the backport trees, thanks!

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

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