This source file already includes <linux/miscdevice.h>, which contains
the same macro. It doesn't need to be defined here again.
Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
---
arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c | 6 ------
1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
diff -- a/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
@@ -239,12 +239,6 @@ extern int (*console_blank_hook)(int);
#endif
/*
- * The apm_bios device is one of the misc char devices.
- * This is its minor number.
- */
-#define APM_MINOR_DEV 134
-
-/*
* Various options can be changed at boot time as follows:
* (We allow underscores for compatibility with the modules code)
* apm=on/off enable/disable APM
s/drop/Drop
On 7/26/2023 4:49 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> This source file already includes <linux/miscdevice.h>, which contains
> the same macro. It doesn't need to be defined here again.
>
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jiri Kosina <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> ---
I am not sure if a Fixes tag is really needed for a redundant macro
definition. If at all, shouldn't it be 874bcd00f520c ("apm-emulation:
move APM_MINOR_DEV to include/linux/miscdevice.h") ?
Either way,
Reviewed-by: Sohil Mehta <[email protected]>
Hi Sohil,
On 7/27/23 13:06, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> s/drop/Drop
>
> On 7/26/2023 4:49 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> This source file already includes <linux/miscdevice.h>, which contains
>> the same macro. It doesn't need to be defined here again.
>>
>> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Jiri Kosina <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> ---
>
> I am not sure if a Fixes tag is really needed for a redundant macro
> definition. If at all, shouldn't it be 874bcd00f520c ("apm-emulation:
> move APM_MINOR_DEV to include/linux/miscdevice.h") ?
I don't see any need for this patch to be backported.
Should it be commit 874bcd00f520c? Maybe. That one certainly
missed moving this macro.
> Either way,
> Reviewed-by: Sohil Mehta <[email protected]>
Thanks.
--
~Randy
On 7/27/2023 2:21 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 7/27/23 13:06, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>> I am not sure if a Fixes tag is really needed for a redundant macro
>> definition. If at all, shouldn't it be 874bcd00f520c ("apm-emulation:
>> move APM_MINOR_DEV to include/linux/miscdevice.h") ?
>
> I don't see any need for this patch to be backported.
>
> Should it be commit 874bcd00f520c? Maybe. That one certainly
> missed moving this macro.
>
Also, applying this patch anytime before 874bcd00f520c will cause a
compilation issue unless 874bcd00f520c is applied as well.
-Sohil
On 7/27/23 15:05, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> On 7/27/2023 2:21 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 7/27/23 13:06, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>>> I am not sure if a Fixes tag is really needed for a redundant macro
>>> definition. If at all, shouldn't it be 874bcd00f520c ("apm-emulation:
>>> move APM_MINOR_DEV to include/linux/miscdevice.h") ?
>>
>> I don't see any need for this patch to be backported.
>>
>> Should it be commit 874bcd00f520c? Maybe. That one certainly
>> missed moving this macro.
>>
>
> Also, applying this patch anytime before 874bcd00f520c will cause a
> compilation issue unless 874bcd00f520c is applied as well.
Yeah, that's a good point. Thanks.
--
~Randy
On 7/27/23 15:41, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
>
> On 7/27/23 15:05, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>> On 7/27/2023 2:21 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 7/27/23 13:06, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>>>> I am not sure if a Fixes tag is really needed for a redundant macro
>>>> definition. If at all, shouldn't it be 874bcd00f520c ("apm-emulation:
>>>> move APM_MINOR_DEV to include/linux/miscdevice.h") ?
>>>
>>> I don't see any need for this patch to be backported.
>>>
>>> Should it be commit 874bcd00f520c? Maybe. That one certainly
>>> missed moving this macro.
>>>
>>
>> Also, applying this patch anytime before 874bcd00f520c will cause a
>> compilation issue unless 874bcd00f520c is applied as well.
>
> Yeah, that's a good point. Thanks.
>
I'll send a v2 with the Fixes: tag changed.
Thanks.
--
~Randy