From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt' Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:34:25 -0500 Message-ID: <1331238865.25686.474.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> References: <1331237591-4406-1-git-send-email-jkacur@redhat.com> <1331237840.25686.470.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20120308142257.145e0968@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: John Kacur , Thomas Gleixner , rt-users , lkml To: Clark Williams Return-path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:31292 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753698Ab2CHUe0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:34:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120308142257.145e0968@redhat.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 14:22 -0600, Clark Williams wrote: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:17:20 -0500 > Steven Rostedt wrote: >=20 > > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:13 +0100, John Kacur wrote: > > > When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is = not > > > defined the following build break occurs. > > >=20 > > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function =E2=80=98t= rigger_softirq=E2=80=99: > > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit dec= laration of function =E2=80=98preempt_check_resched_rt=E2=80=99 > > > make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1 > > > make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2 > > > make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 > > >=20 > > > This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the > > > !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section. > > >=20 > > > Signed-off-by: Clark Williams > >=20 > > Why Clark's SOB? Did he write it and send it to you? >=20 > I suppose to be technically correct it should have been a Tested-by: >=20 > John found it while I was working on it and I tested it for him. Either a "Reported-by" if you mentioned it to John and he fixed it, or = a "Tested-by" if he fixed it and you tested it. You can have both if that is true too. But "Signed-off-by" has supposed legal significance. It means that you are responsible for this patch. Either you authored it, or it went through you to get to the git repo (ie. you are the maintainer that too= k the patch). All other tags are FYI only. Only the SOB is required and has real meaning. Also, you should *never* add a SOB to a patch without the person explicitly giving it to you. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-user= s" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html