lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectversion of drivers/sound/audio.c in 2.0.3[67]

I think there is a mixup in audio.c (or there was a patch rollback that I
missed).

I have a little kernel patch/module called paudio that allows capturing
of whatever data is being sent to the sound card. I was updating for
2.0.3[67] when I came across something odd.

The linux 2.0.36 tree that I have (and as far as I remember came with
RH5.2) has an audio.c that has this for the first 40 or so lines (call
this "audio-unknown"):

/*
* sound/audio.c
*
* Device file manager for /dev/audio
*/

/*
* Copyright (C) by Hannu Savolainen 1993-1997
*
* OSS/Free for Linux is distributed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GPL)
* Version 2 (June 1991). See the "COPYING" file distributed with this software
* for more info.
*/
/*
* Thomas Sailer : ioctl code reworked (vmalloc/vfree removed)
* Thomas Sailer : moved several static variables into struct audio_operations
* (which is grossly misnamed btw.) because they have the same
* lifetime as the rest in there and dynamic allocation saves
* 12k or so
*/


I am running with this version of audio.c, and the kernel reports being
2.0.36.

A version I just pulled off of www.us.kernel.org has this (call
it "audio-2.0.36"):

/*
* sound/audio.c
*
* Device file manager for /dev/audio
*/

/*
* Copyright (C) by Hannu Savolainen 1993-1996
*
* USS/Lite for Linux is distributed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GPL)
* Version 2 (June 1991). See the "COPYING" file distributed with this software
* for more info.
*/


As you can see, the copyrights are different. In fact, much of the code
is different. I checked a audio.c in 2.0.37 (call it "audio-2.0.37") and
it is identical to "audio-2.0.36", so I guess it is the correct one (dang,
now I have to rework and retest my patch).

My question is where did "audio-unknown" come from? "audio-unknown"
claims to be part of OSS/Free, whereas the others claim to be part of
USS/Lite. AFAIK, OSS/Free was more current. I run Red Hat 5.2 which I
_vaguely_ (and perhaps erroneously) recall shipped with a non-final
version of 2.0.36, so that might explain this, especially if some changes
were backed out before 2.0.36-final shipped.

--Jeremy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Impson Linux, Perl, and Network geek
jdimpson@source.syr.edu http://source.syr.edu/~jdimpson




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.032 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site