Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:57:22 +0100 | From | Sam Ravnborg <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL -tip] fix 41 'make headers_check' warnings |
| |
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:02:21PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/acct.h b/include/linux/acct.h > > index 882dc72..a20c97c 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/acct.h > > +++ b/include/linux/acct.h > > @@ -59,9 +59,13 @@ struct acct > > comp_t ac_majflt; /* Major Pagefaults */ > > comp_t ac_swaps; /* Number of Swaps */ > > /* m68k had no padding here. */ > > -#if !defined(CONFIG_M68K) || !defined(__KERNEL__) > > +#ifdef __KERNEL__ > > +#ifndef CONFIG_M68K > > __u16 ac_ahz; /* AHZ */ > > -#endif > > +#endif /* CONFIG_M68K */ > > +#else /* __KERNEL__ */ > > + __u16 ac_ahz; /* AHZ */ > > +#endif /* __KERNEL__ */ > > that looks rather ugly. > > Why not just flip it around to: > > #if !defined(__KERNEL__) || !defined(CONFIG_M68K) > > ? Does headers_check misinterpret that?
The original expression is misinterpreted by headers_check because we want the ac_ahz to stay if either of __KERNEL__ or CONFIG_M68K is not defined. And unifdef does not optimize away the !defined(CONFIG_M68K) part - it has no knowledge that this is kernel internal.
So I am happy with Jaswinder's patch.
That said I really no not understand why there is this subtle issue with struct acct in the first place..
Sam
| |