On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 08:50 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 02:07 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
[...]
> >> We have been using compat_ for a while now to prefix a lot of our
> >> symbols without clashes for the 32-64 compat stuff, but sure -- we can
> >> use something else to help with any theoretical issues. Surprised
> >> Debian of all distributions would frankly have been affected given
> >> RHEL / SUSE didn't, but its OK, lets deal with it.
> >
> > The conflict that just showed up in Debian involved the 'i2c_bit_algo'
> > symbol which had no symbol prefix in 'compat'. We updated the in-tree
> > DRM drivers from 3.4.32 and started exporting the symbol from
> > i2c-algo-bit itself.
> >
> > I hadn't noticed that you already used the 'compat_' prefix for some
> > exported symbols and I'm not aware of any current conflict with the
> > 32-bit compatibility layer, but it seems plausible that it could happen
> > in future.
>
> Sure, let me know what you think of the proposed posted changes.
All looked fine to me, but I'm not that familiar with the compat-drivers
code base.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
- Robert Coveyou
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
