Re: [gentoo-dev] XFree86 and 2.6 kernel headers

[Donnie Berkholz]

On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 14:55, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>  > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 12:22, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
>  >
>  >> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> I think a kernel specific conditional patch should be included in
> XFree86 as it is unlikely the linux kernel headers are going to change back.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Thanks for the heads up on that one.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Such as this?
>  >
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/xfree/patchsets/4.3.0/patch/9020_all_4.3.0-fix-2.5-headers-rate-period.patch
>  >
>  > It'll be going into 4.3.0-r4, which is in progress.
>  >
>  > Donnie
>
>
> I can't say I like such a global change:
>
> +/* Deal with spurious kernel header change */
> +#if defined(LINUX_VERSION_CODE) && defined(KERNEL_VERSION)
> +# if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,5,42)
> +#  define rate period
> +# endif
> +#endif
>
> I think it would be better to put the conditionals around each instance
> of 'rate', which I believe is only in one location anyway.  If your
> patch causes a problem, trying to figure out the cause might get messy
> by just substituting period for rate .... it won't be obvious such a
> substitution is going on to somebody not in the know (no obvious naming
> convention used here).

This is a backport from XFree86 CVS, not something I made up. So if
there is a problem, it's theirs.

Donnie