netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix build error caused by broken PCH

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:46:21 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	haicheng.li@...ux.intel.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, tshimizu818@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, haicheng.lee@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix build error caused by broken PCH_PTP module
 dependency.

From: Haicheng Li <haicheng.li@...ux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:41:43 +0800

> On 09/28/2012 06:09 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> Look at how other people submit patches, do any other patch
>> submissions
>> look like your's having all of this metadata in the message body:
> I'm sorry for it.
> 
>> As for this specific patch:
>>
>>> -	depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH
>>> +	depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH = PCH_GBE
>>
>> This is not the correct way to ensure that the module'ness of one
>> config option meets the module'ness requirements of another.
>> The correct way is to say something like "&&  (PCH_GBE || PCH_GBE=n)"
> 
> This case is a little bit tricky than usual, with PCH_PTP selected,
> the valid config would be either "PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH=PCH_GBE=m" or
> "PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH=PCH_GBE=y", and PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH depends on
> PCH_GBE.

And a simple "&& PCH_GBE" should accomplish this, no?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html