[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <i2p446ae9281004271007h43f9949dw9848a7786a9c7be1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:07:12 -0700
From: Steve deRosier <steve@...ybit.com>
To: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the wireless tree
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 8:40 AM, John W. Linville
<linville@...driver.com> wrote:
>
> Right. So in wireless-testing I did the includes in the other order
> (i.e. "deb_defs.h" first), but that is a bit ugly. Any suggestions
> on alternatives?
>
> "#undef pr_fmt" just before the "#define pr_fmt(fmt)..." line in
> db_defs.h seems to eliminate the warning even with the more normal
> ordering of the #include lines. I'm not familiar with the usage of
> pr_fmt -- will doing the above preserve the desired effect?
John,
I thought about that particular strategy (doing the #undef) instead of
the non-traditional include mess. But not being familiar enough with
the pr_fmt stuff, I didn't want to do it.
My goal was to get the '#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt'
line in the deb_defs.h header so it was only in one place. But to
build, that define must be before kernel.h gets included anywhere.
Hence the current mess.
I'm OK with the #undef strategy and moving the deb_defs.h include to a
better position if that's the correct way to do this. Please let me
know if I have any action items on this.
- Steve
--
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