From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the moduleh tree Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 10:42:11 +0200 Message-ID: <4E37B863.4080700@fusionio.com> References: <20110801132359.1de051cb8a4a2bdfdad7560c@canb.auug.org.au> <4E37A696.2090007@fusionio.com> <20110802183558.fda9e3b1e9f3b93a70f6e494@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.fusionio.com ([66.114.96.30]:35119 "EHLO mx1.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752621Ab1HBImO (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:42:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110802183558.fda9e3b1e9f3b93a70f6e494@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Paul Gortmaker , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Mike Christie On 2011-08-02 10:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:26:14 +0200 Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> Thanks, will you carry this until things are merged? Not easy for me to >> fix up. > > Yes, no problem. It is possible that the module.h split may not even go > into v3.1, in which case the fix patch will jst become part of the moduleh > tree after the block tree is merged. > > Though the feedback to the original patch writer is that they should have > included module.h instead of relying on it being implicitly included. That would arguably have been a much saner approach. > You could include a patch to add an include of module.h to this file in > your tree - that way even if the module.h split goes ahead, your tree > won't get broken. It could then be changed to the lighter weight > export.h later. OK, I will add that. Thanks. -- Jens Axboe