![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:31:04PM +0200, zippel@linux-m68k.org wrote: > > > Fixes a "static qualifier follows non-static qualifier" error from > > > gcc 4. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au> > > > Signed-off-by: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> > > > > Broken. Proper fix is to rename the function so that it wouldn't > > clash. > > Well, I wouldn't call it broken, as both versions can never be compiled > into the same kernel, but I don't care much how it's fixed. > > Does anyone know the relationship between via-pmu.c and via-pmu68k.c? If > it's intended to keep the differences small, a rename would be the wrong > fix. The relationship is (and was) just that they share the pmu.h header file declarations. In the patch in question I used the powerpc definition as well. The powerpc version exports pmu_queue_request (apparently for the use of low_i2c.c). The m68k version doesn't, but if it needed to export it, I don't see why it shouldn't implement the same "API"? -f > bye, Roman > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-06-24 06:47 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||