From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752737Ab1HBImU (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:42:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.fusionio.com ([66.114.96.30]:35118 "EHLO mx1.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752606Ab1HBImO (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:42:14 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1312274532-03d6a510a92248c0001-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: JAxboe@fusionio.com Message-ID: <4E37B863.4080700@fusionio.com> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 10:42:11 +0200 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell CC: Paul Gortmaker , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Mike Christie Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the moduleh tree References: <20110801132359.1de051cb8a4a2bdfdad7560c@canb.auug.org.au> <4E37A696.2090007@fusionio.com> <20110802183558.fda9e3b1e9f3b93a70f6e494@canb.auug.org.au> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the moduleh tree In-Reply-To: <20110802183558.fda9e3b1e9f3b93a70f6e494@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.int.fusionio.com[10.101.1.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1312274532 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.101.1.180:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.70672 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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