On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:21:33 -0700 (PDT) Trent Piepho <xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > (switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the > > bugzilla web interface). > > > > > > Guys, this is reportedly a post-2.6.30 regression - I'll ask Rafael to > > add it to the regression tracking list. > > > > btw, does the flexcop driver have a regular maintainer? Or someone who > > wants to volunteer? MAINTAINERS is silent about it.. > > I produced a patch that fixed this problem over a month ago, > http://www.linuxtv.org/hg/~tap/v4l-dvb/rev/748c762fcf3e Where is that patch now? It isn't present in linux-next. If it needs to be resent, please cc me on it? Also, is there any way of avoiding this? +#define FE_SUPPORTED(fe) (defined(CONFIG_DVB_##fe) || \ + (defined(CONFIG_DVB_##fe##_MODULE) && defined(MODULE))) That's just way too tricky. It expects all versions of the preprocessor to be correctly implemented (unlikely) and there are other tools like unifdef which want to parse kernel #defines. otoh the trick does produce a nice result and doing it any other way (which I can think of) would make a mess. > Maybe it should go into 2.6.31? It depends on the seriousness of the regression (number of people affected, whether there's a workaround, etc) and upon the riskiness of the patch. But sure, we don't want regressions and letting one be released when we already know about it and have a fix would be bad! If the patch is judged too risky at this time, there might be a simpler one, perhaps. Or just revert whichever patch broke things. Your changelog describes this as simply "A recent patch" (bad changelog!) so I am unable to judge this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
