[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <69e28c910906030847k7e6f97bbo16497d872b93151b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:47:26 +0200
From: Gábor Stefanik <netrolller.3d@...il.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 3 (rfkill)
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 08:22 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
>> CFG80211=y
>> MAC80211=y
>> RFKILL=m
>>
>> net/built-in.o: In function `cfg80211_netdev_notifier_call':
>> core.c:(.text+0xa678b): undefined reference to `rfkill_blocked'
>> net/built-in.o: In function `cfg80211_dev_free':
>
> Hrm. I thought
>
> config CFG80211
> tristate "Improved wireless configuration API"
> depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL
>
> would avoid that. Why doesn't it?
>
> johannes
>
Maybe the "y" state of CFG80211 specifically needs to depend on
RFKILL=y || !RFKILL.
BTW should CFG80211=y really be blocked when RFKILL=m? Shouldn't we
just disable CFG80211 RFKILL support in this case (perhaps via a
separate CONFIG_CFG80211_RFKILL automatically configured depending on
CONFIG_RFKILL)?
--
Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists