[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87fu41ilor.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 14:32:04 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
y2038@...ts.linaro.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparc: compat: allow including asm/compat.h for 32-bit
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
> We have several files on sparc that include linux/compat.h and expect
> asm/compat.h not to be included, otherwise we get a build failure.
Should this say: "We have several files on sparc that include
linux/compat.h and expect asm/compat.h not be included when
!CONFIG_COMPAT." ?
I don't have your tree and I see asm/compat.h included from
linux/compat.h already so the description above seems wrong.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists