On 01/12/11 12:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2011, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 01/12/11 10:40, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:39:19 +0100 Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/12/2011 11:19 AM, Len Brown wrote:
>>>>> @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static inline int suspend_nvs_register(unsigned long a, unsigned long b)
>>>>> }
>>>>> static inline int suspend_nvs_alloc(void) { return 0; }
>>>>> static inline void suspend_nvs_free(void) {}
>>>>> -static inline void suspend_nvs_save(void) {}
>>>>> +static inline int suspend_nvs_save(void) {}
>>>>
>>>> Aiee, I've just noticed, this needs to return something, otherwise a
>>>> warning is generated for !CONFIG_SUSPEND_NVS.
>>>>
>>>> What's better for you, a followup or resend?
>>>
>>> Yeah, I just made a patch for that, but I'll leave it up to
>>> you and Len to haggle about.
>
> We're removing CONFIG_SUSPEND_NVS in one of the later patches, but please send
> the fix if it's still necessary after applying the entire series.
Build fails in linux-next of 2011-0112. Does that have the entire series
applied?
>> Not that Len cares, but there is also this build error when
>> ACPI is not enabled:
>>
>> arch/x86/kernel/e820.c:734: error:implicit declaration of function 'suspend_nvs_register'
>>
>>
>> I also have a patch for it.
>
> Please submit it.
Did that.
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
