From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: reinette chatre Subject: Re: linux-next: net/kbuild trees build failure Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:04:03 -0800 Message-ID: <1260223443.4653.794.camel@rc-desk> References: <20091207200317.57820f0a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091207114158.GA2428@merkur.ravnborg.org> <4B1CF39A.5050806@suse.cz> <20091207160903.GB18939@tuxdriver.com> <1260209537.4653.778.camel@rc-desk> <4B1D76B1.6070601@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "John W. Linville" , Sam Ravnborg , Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" To: Michal Marek Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4B1D76B1.6070601@suse.cz> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 13:42 -0800, Michal Marek wrote: > It seems there is some misunderstanding. > The original problem reported by Stephen was that linux/utsrelease.h was > moved to generated/utsrelease.h in the kbuild tree (that commit also > patched init/version.c and all other users known at that time). This > change in kbuild broke the new iwlwifi in the net tree. Stephen attached > the most obvious fix, i.e. change linux/utsrelease.h to > generated/utsrelease.h in the iwlwifi source > (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/7/121). My suggestion was to let Stephen > carry the fix in linux-next for now, and once one of the trees (kbuild > or net) hits mainline, the other tree would apply Stephen's patch. Would > that work for everyone? I am not involved in the merging part and would thus not be the one applying Stephen's patch. I would like the iwlwifi patch that uses UTS_RELEASE as well as Stephen's fix to find it in the right place to go in though (end up in linux-2.6). > Now if someone wants to remove the DRV_VERSION macro from iwlwifi or rip > the UTS_RELEASE part out of it, that would make this problem go away, > but I don't think it's necessary _just_ because of the kbuild change. This is perhaps something John and I should discuss separately. Thank you Reinette