lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH resend] video: omap24xxcam: Fix compilation
From
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 02:09:07PM +0200, David Cohen wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 06:04:58PM +0200, David Cohen wrote:
>> >> > I have to disagree. The fundamental problem is the circular dependency
>> >> > between those two files:
>> >> >
>> >> > sched.h uses wait_queue_head_t defined in wait.h
>> >> > wait.h uses TASK_* defined in sched.h
>> >> >
>> >> > So, IMO the real fix would be clear out the circular dependency. Maybe
>> >> > introducing <linux/task.h> to define those TASK_* symbols and include
>> >> > that on sched.h and wait.h
>> >> >
>> >> > Just dig a quick and dirty to try it out and works like a charm
>> >>
>> >> We have 2 problems:
>> >>  - omap24xxcam compilation broken
>> >>  - circular dependency between sched.h and wait.h
>> >>
>> >> To fix the broken compilation we can do what the rest of the kernel is
>> >> doing, which is to include sched.h.
>> >> Then, the circular dependency is fixed by some different approach
>> >> which would probably change *all* current usage of TASK_*.
>> >
>> > considering that 1 is caused by 2 I would fix 2.
>> >
>> >> IMO, there's no need to create a dependency between those issues.
>> >
>> > There's no dependency between them, it's just that the root cause for
>> > this problem is a circular dependency between wait.h and sched.h
>>
>> I did a try to fix this circular dependency and the comment I got was
>> to include sched.h in omap24xxcam.c file:
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129828637120270&w=2
>>
>> I'm working to remove v4l2 internal device interface from omap24xxcam
>> and then I need this driver's compilation fixed.
>> The whole kernel is including sched.h when wake_up*() macro is used,
>> so this should be our first solution IMO.
>> As I said earlier, no need to make this compilation fix be dependent
>> of wait.h fix (if it's really going to be changed).
>>
>> I think we should proceed with this patch.
>
> I would wait to hear from Ingo or Peter who are the maintainers for that
> part, but fine by me.

How about to proceed with this patch?

Regards,

David

>
> --
> balbi
>
--
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: 2011-02-25 00:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans