On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:21:33 -0700 (PDT) > Trent Piepho <xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > 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. Mauro has how pulled it from me and so it will probably show up in his tree soon. > 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. What's so tricky about it? A quick grep shows hundreds of uses of ## for concatenation. > otoh the trick does produce a nice result and doing it any other way > (which I can think of) would make a mess. This particular kind of test is something that is used many times in the dvb code. This isn't the first time someone has gotten it wrong by a long shot. Mauro suggested, and I agree, that for the next kernel we should put FE_SUPPORTED into a dvb header file and convert the many existing tests to use it. Maybe this will reduce the number of mistakes. > 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. It was commit d66b94b4aa2f40e134f8c07c58ae74ef3d523ee0, but it was not committed until five days after I made my patch, so there was no hash to reference yet. I suppose I should have used the patch title. -- 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
