[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH resend] video: omap24xxcam: Fix compilation
    Hallo David,

    Am 25.02.2011 00:36, schrieb David Cohen:
    > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Felipe Balbi <> 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 <> 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:
    >>> 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

    I got a message that the patch is queued at for_v2.6.39

    Thanks Mauro.


     \ /
      Last update: 2011-02-25 08:03    [W:0.025 / U:25.376 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site