On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 12:32 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > On 7/5/21 12:26 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 12:26 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > > On 7/5/21 12:19 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 12:17 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Did you test it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, pretty sure we do it basically all the time. We don't have kernels > > > > that new yet in most of our test setups. > > > > > > > > > Because that should be logically identical to what I tried if I read this file properly: > > > > > > > > Actually, your version might be more correct than ours ... > > > > > > > > I dunno. I note we also have an <linux/rfkill.h> include in cfg80211.h, > > > > but that should be there upstream too, so not sure. > > > > > > There are a lot of rfkill.h files, what logic makes the backports code include the specific > > > backport/backport-include/linux/rfkill.h file? I suspect that isn't working for the cfg80211.h > > > file for whatever reason. > > > > It's just an additional -I flag on the compiler command line, or - > > isystem or something like that. > > > > johannes > > > > my cfg80211.h shows this line: > > #include <uapi/linux/rfkill.h> Not a later <linux/rfkill.h> line? We have one like that in our version ... I guess we should really only have the <linux/rfkill.h> one, but since we want the function declaration, we really ought to have that? johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
