First of all, thanks for the quick reply > I get that you have this on kunit on ARCH=um, but that makes it > neither > a kunit nor a um patch :) Well, yes I wasn't entirely sure how to put it, sure people from UM/KUnit know what this is about, but I agree perhaps the patch title can be a bit misleading. > Arnd had originally wanted to fix this another way, but that got > dropped. I don't know if this fix is right, though I can see that it > works. I have the same workaround in my tree, but I'm really not > convinced that it doesn't have side-effects on other architectures. I thought about doing it differently, perhaps using an additional header file or even re-arranging the macro dependency, this seemed to me the easiest and perhaps less risky for other architectures, but I get the concerns. I could perform some further analyses building it for multiple targets (besides _it builds_ I mean), if you have anything specific in mind. Gabriele
