From: Sultan Alsawaf <[email protected]>
Architecture-specific uaccess.h headers can have dependencies on
linux/uaccess.h (i.e., VERIFY_WRITE), so it cannot be included directly.
Since linux/uaccess.h includes asm/uaccess.h, just do that instead.
This fixes compile errors with certain kernels and architectures.
Signed-off-by: Sultan Alsawaf <[email protected]>
---
src/backfire/backfire.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backfire/backfire.c b/src/backfire/backfire.c
index aaf9c4a..a8ac9f5 100644
--- a/src/backfire/backfire.c
+++ b/src/backfire/backfire.c
@@ -30,8 +30,8 @@
#include <linux/miscdevice.h>
#include <linux/proc_fs.h>
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
+#include <linux/uaccess.h>
-#include <asm/uaccess.h>
#include <asm/system.h>
#define BACKFIRE_MINOR MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR
--
2.23.0
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> From: Sultan Alsawaf <[email protected]>
>
> Architecture-specific uaccess.h headers can have dependencies on
> linux/uaccess.h (i.e., VERIFY_WRITE), so it cannot be included directly.
> Since linux/uaccess.h includes asm/uaccess.h, just do that instead.
>
> This fixes compile errors with certain kernels and architectures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sultan Alsawaf <[email protected]>
> ---
> src/backfire/backfire.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/backfire/backfire.c b/src/backfire/backfire.c
> index aaf9c4a..a8ac9f5 100644
> --- a/src/backfire/backfire.c
> +++ b/src/backfire/backfire.c
> @@ -30,8 +30,8 @@
> #include <linux/miscdevice.h>
> #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/uaccess.h>
>
> -#include <asm/uaccess.h>
> #include <asm/system.h>
>
> #define BACKFIRE_MINOR MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR
> --
> 2.23.0
>
>
Signed-off-by: John Kacur <[email protected]>
But please in the future
1. Don't cc lkml on this
2. Include the maintainers in your patch
Thanks
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:57:32PM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <[email protected]>
> But please in the future
> 1. Don't cc lkml on this
> 2. Include the maintainers in your patch
Hi,
Thanks for the sign-off. I was following the instructions listed here:
https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/realtime/communication/send_rt_patches
I couldn't find any documentation of how to send patches for rt-tests. Is there
a different set of patch submission instructions on a wiki somewhere I missed?
Thanks,
Sultan
On 2019-09-16 23:57:32 [+0200], John Kacur wrote:
> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <[email protected]>
Hmmm. I remember this thing came up years ago in the Debian BTS and then
that backfire module got removed from the Debian package because there
was no need for it.
Just to clarify: is there any need to keep this module or do I mix up
things?
Sebastian
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 09:15:46AM +0200, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:57:32PM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: John Kacur <[email protected]>
> > But please in the future
> > 1. Don't cc lkml on this
> > 2. Include the maintainers in your patch
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the sign-off. I was following the instructions listed here:
> https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/realtime/communication/send_rt_patches
I guess, that's for rt kernel patches.
>
> I couldn't find any documentation of how to send patches for
> rt-tests. Is there a different set of patch submission instructions on
> a wiki somewhere I missed?
For rt-tests see the top level MAINTAINERS file on how to send patches.
>
> Thanks,
> Sultan
Thanks,
Kurt
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-09-16 23:57:32 [+0200], John Kacur wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: John Kacur <[email protected]>
>
> Hmmm. I remember this thing came up years ago in the Debian BTS and then
> that backfire module got removed from the Debian package because there
> was no need for it.
> Just to clarify: is there any need to keep this module or do I mix up
> things?
>
> Sebastian
>
The cost of carrying the code should anyone wish to revive this is very
small, and it wouldn't take much effort to get it going again.
It could go either way, I'm fine with carrying it for now.
John
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:57:32PM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: John Kacur <[email protected]>
> > But please in the future
> > 1. Don't cc lkml on this
> > 2. Include the maintainers in your patch
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the sign-off. I was following the instructions listed here:
> https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/realtime/communication/send_rt_patches
Those are the instructions for rt kernel code.
rt-tests is a users space program to test the performance of the rt
kernel.
Always just check if there is a MAINTAINERS file (there is)
when you clone the git repo.
Thanks
John
>
> I couldn't find any documentation of how to send patches for rt-tests. Is there
> a different set of patch submission instructions on a wiki somewhere I missed?
>
> Thanks,
> Sultan
>