| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 12:22, Andrew Gaffney wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> I think a kernel specific conditional patch should be included in |
| 8 |
XFree86 as it is unlikely the linux kernel headers are going to change back. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Thanks for the heads up on that one. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Such as this? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/xfree/patchsets/4.3.0/patch/9020_all_4.3.0-fix-2.5-headers-rate-period.patch |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It'll be going into 4.3.0-r4, which is in progress. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Donnie |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I can't say I like such a global change: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
+/* Deal with spurious kernel header change */ |
| 27 |
+#if defined(LINUX_VERSION_CODE) && defined(KERNEL_VERSION) |
| 28 |
+# if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,5,42) |
| 29 |
+# define rate period |
| 30 |
+# endif |
| 31 |
+#endif |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I think it would be better to put the conditionals around each instance |
| 34 |
of 'rate', which I believe is only in one location anyway. If your |
| 35 |
patch causes a problem, trying to figure out the cause might get messy |
| 36 |
by just substituting period for rate .... it won't be obvious such a |
| 37 |
substitution is going on to somebody not in the know (no obvious naming |
| 38 |
convention used here). |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Tom Veldhouse |
Archives