Re: [-mm patch] fix SuperIO compilation
From: Evgeniy Polyakov (johnpol_at_2ka.mipt.ru)
Date: 01/24/05
- Previous message: Roman Zippel: "Re: 2.6.11-rc2-mm1"
- In reply to: Evgeniy Polyakov: "Re: [-mm patch] fix SuperIO compilation"
- Next in thread: Evgeniy Polyakov: "[1/1] superio: remove unneded exports and make some functions static."
- Reply: Evgeniy Polyakov: "[1/1] superio: remove unneded exports and make some functions static."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:56:11 +0300
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 16:04 +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 12:34 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:41PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:15:16AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > >...
> > > > Changes since 2.6.11-rc1-mm2:
> > > >...
> > > > bk-i2c.patch
> > > >...
> > > > Latest versions of various bk trees
> > > >...
> > >
> > > This causes the following compile error:
> >
> > Where's that code coming from anyone? Greg seems to be adding tons of not fully
> > reviewed stuff lately..
>
> That code was written by me.
> Please provide full error output, since it is compiled successfully
> here.
>
> Thank you.
Ok, I found following in the archive:
******************************************
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:15:16AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>...
> Changes since 2.6.11-rc1-mm2:
>...
> bk-i2c.patch
>...
> Latest versions of various bk trees
>...
This causes the following compile error:
<-- snip -->
...
LD drivers/superio/built-in.o
drivers/superio/sc_acb.o(.text+0x0): In function `sc_write_reg':
: multiple definition of `sc_write_reg'
drivers/superio/sc_gpio.o(.text+0x0): first defined here
drivers/superio/sc_acb.o(.text+0x30): In function `sc_read_reg':
: multiple definition of `sc_read_reg'
drivers/superio/sc_gpio.o(.text+0x30): first defined here
make[2]: *** [drivers/superio/built-in.o] Error 1
<-- snip -->
The trivial fix for these needlessly global functions is below.
BTW1: pin_test.c is added but completely unused.
BTW2: bk-i2c adds a whole bunch of unused SuperIO EXPORT_SYMBOL's.
Is usage for them expected very soon or shall I send a patch to
remove them?
<-- snip -->
This patch makes needlessly global functions static fixing a compile
error if both sc_acb.c and sc_gpio.c are compiled statically into the
kernel.
*********************************
It is not Greg, but completely my fault and I agree with your changes.
pin_test.c was added as example of how to use SuperIO subsystem,
it is not supposed to be compiled, it is an example, probably it should
live in Documentation/superio/example.c
Tahnk you for review.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
Crash is better than data corruption -- Arthur Grabowski
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- application/pgp-signature attachment: This is a digitally signed message part
- Previous message: Roman Zippel: "Re: 2.6.11-rc2-mm1"
- In reply to: Evgeniy Polyakov: "Re: [-mm patch] fix SuperIO compilation"
- Next in thread: Evgeniy Polyakov: "[1/1] superio: remove unneded exports and make some functions static."
- Reply: Evgeniy Polyakov: "[1/1] superio: remove unneded exports and make some functions static."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
