Hi!
linux/linkage.h includes macro "ENTRY(a)", while linux/coda_linux
includes ... macro "ENTRY".
It would be good to rename one of them (they are probably not needed
in one module, anyway, that's not clean)...
Oh and there's no entry for CODA in MAINTAINERS file. You probably
want to fix that.
Pavel
--
"I do not steal MS software. It is not worth it."
-- Pavel Kankovsky
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 09:52:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> linux/linkage.h includes macro "ENTRY(a)", while linux/coda_linux
> includes ... macro "ENTRY".
That could lead to a possible problem. We're just lucky that no file in
the Coda code has __ASSEMBLY__ defined.
> It would be good to rename one of them (they are probably not needed
> in one module, anyway, that's not clean)...
Actually all coda_XXX.h files don't even have to be in include/linux/,
only coda.h contains structs/defines that should be 'visible' outside of
the Coda kernel code, anything else should just go to fs/coda and get a
good dust off to remove a bunch of cruft.
> Oh and there's no entry for CODA in MAINTAINERS file. You probably
> want to fix that.
Gee, oh well. I didn't consider it 'critical bug-fixes only' or
important enough to push a patch for a maintainers entry into a stable
series, and obviously wasn't paying attention during 2.3 development.
Besides I've been sending you updates whenever something critical
changes in coda.o (considering you are using it for podfuk). I would
figure that of all people at least you would know.
Jan
Hi!
> > It would be good to rename one of them (they are probably not needed
> > in one module, anyway, that's not clean)...
>
> Actually all coda_XXX.h files don't even have to be in include/linux/,
> only coda.h contains structs/defines that should be 'visible' outside of
> the Coda kernel code, anything else should just go to fs/coda and get a
> good dust off to remove a bunch of cruft.
There's no reason to move them... include/linux is as good place as
fs/coda.
> > Oh and there's no entry for CODA in MAINTAINERS file. You probably
> > want to fix that.
>
> Gee, oh well. I didn't consider it 'critical bug-fixes only' or
> important enough to push a patch for a maintainers entry into a stable
> series, and obviously wasn't paying attention during 2.3
> development.
It is bug-fix, and very easy to see it does not break anything. *That*
kind of fixes is welcome anytime ;-).
> Besides I've been sending you updates whenever something critical
> changes in coda.o (considering you are using it for podfuk). I would
> figure that of all people at least you would know.
(-: Sorry.
Pavel
--
Casualities in World Trade Center: 6453 dead inside the building,
cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic.