Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:38:58 -0700 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PATCHES] kbuild updates |
| |
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:32:04PM +0100, Alistair John Strachan wrote: > On Monday 05 September 2005 21:13, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:35:14PM +0100, Alistair John Strachan wrote: > > > On Monday 05 September 2005 18:41, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > Hi Linus. > > > > > > > > kbuild updates as accumulated over the last few months. > > > > All patches has been in -mm in one or several versions. > > > > > > > > Most noteworthy: > > > > 1) -Wundef added to CFLAGS. This is the cause of several new warnings, > > > > which for the most part has been fixed for now. > > > > 2) "PREEMPT" in UTS_VERSION. So we complain when dealing > > > > with modules compiled for a wrong kernel > > > > > > How is this different from the preempt module vermagic? > > > > > > ~$ modinfo agpgart | grep vermagic > > > vermagic: 2.6.13 preempt gcc-4.0 > > > > My bad. Adding PREEMT to UTS_VERSION makes it visible in uname -a. > > > > I see. I can understand adding an extraversion for SMP and experimental > patches (like Ingo's RT work), but why is it useful to differentiate (by > name) between preempt and non-preempt kernels? Do distributors wish to > package both in parallel?
I created the patch so that it would show up in oops reports and elsewhere and avoid the inevitable question "was this a preempt kernel?"
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - 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/
| |