From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the moduleh tree Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:01:27 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20110928181815.45f540034ddde2b206fc4e57@canb.auug.org.au> <20111009050809.GS19986@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:43873 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751996Ab1JISB6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Oct 2011 14:01:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20111009050809.GS19986@windriver.com> (Paul Gortmaker's message of "Sun, 9 Oct 2011 01:08:09 -0400") Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Paul Gortmaker Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Per Forlin , Stephen Rothwell , Akinobu Mita Hi Paul, On Sun, Oct 09 2011, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > I was wondering if you were going to apply this to the mmc tree. Since > the module_param addition isn't in the module.h baseline, I'd be > speculatively fixing an issue that hasn't been created yet, which isn't > the end of the world, but it doesn't feel quite right to do that either. Thanks, I've pushed both this patch and "Add module.h to drivers/mmc users assuming implicit presence" to the mmc-next tree now. - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child