[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:58:25 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@...ibm.com>
Cc: <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, <kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure
>>> Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@...ibm.com> 02.10.09 17:48 >>>
>On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 07:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The one Rusty suggested the other day may help here. I don't like it
>> as a drop-in replacement for BUILD_BUG_ON() though (due to it
>> deferring the error generated to the linking stage), I'd rather view
>> this as an improvement to MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() (which should
>> then be used here).
>
>Can you be more specific?
>
>I have no idea what Rusty suggested where. I can't even guess what
I'm attaching Rusty's response I was referring to.
>MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() is supposed to do (sounds like a terrible name).
Agreed - but presumably better than just deleting the bogus instances
altogether...
Jan
Content of type "message/rfc822" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists