2002-07-22 20:42:12

by Christopher Hoover

Subject: [PATCH] 2.5.24+ fix needed for non-modular video build

diff -X ../dontdiff.txt -Naur linux-2.5.24-rmk1/drivers/media/video/videodev.c linux-2.5.24-rmk1-ch1/drivers/media/video/videodev.c
--- linux-2.5.24-rmk1/drivers/media/video/videodev.c Thu Jun 20 15:53:45 2002
+++ linux-2.5.24-rmk1-ch1/drivers/media/video/videodev.c Tue Jul 9 15:36:53 2002
@@ -288,8 +288,6 @@
video_dev_proc_entry->owner = THIS_MODULE;
}

-#ifdef MODULE
-#if defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS) && defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_PROC_FS)
static void videodev_proc_destroy(void)
{
if (video_dev_proc_entry != NULL)
@@ -298,8 +296,6 @@
if (video_proc_entry != NULL)
remove_proc_entry("video", &proc_root);
}
-#endif
-#endif

static void videodev_proc_create_dev (struct video_device *vfd, char *name)
{

2002-07-23 12:34:36

by Dave Jones

Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.24+ fix needed for non-modular video build

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:45:14PM -0700, Christopher Hoover wrote:

> -#ifdef MODULE
> -#if defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS) && defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_PROC_FS)
> static void videodev_proc_destroy(void)
> {
> if (video_dev_proc_entry != NULL)
> @@ -298,8 +296,6 @@
> if (video_proc_entry != NULL)
> remove_proc_entry("video", &proc_root);
> }
> -#endif
> -#endif

Why are you removing the inner ifdef too ? This looks like it
makes sense (to me at least)

Dave

--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

2002-07-23 17:14:45

by Christopher Hoover

Subject: RE: [PATCH] 2.5.24+ fix needed for non-modular video build

> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:45:14PM -0700, Christopher Hoover wrote:
>
> > -#ifdef MODULE
> > -#if defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS) && defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_PROC_FS)
> > static void videodev_proc_destroy(void)
> > {
> > if (video_dev_proc_entry != NULL)
> > @@ -298,8 +296,6 @@
> > if (video_proc_entry != NULL)
> > remove_proc_entry("video", &proc_root);
> > }
> > -#endif
> > -#endif
>
> Why are you removing the inner ifdef too ? This looks like it
> makes sense (to me at least)

It makes sense but it is redundant -- there is a wider-scoped ifdef in
the file that catches that function and others.

-ch

mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]