sf...@users.sourceforge.net dixit: >test this patch since I don't have m68k environment.
I can do that, but not too many patches at a time, since it takes easily a whole day to compile it. (Also, my own hacking time is limited atm.) >It introduces a new separated file include/linux/aufs_name.h. Isn’t that a bit overkill? Geert Uytterhoeven dixit: >On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 05:46, <sf...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >> +/* fs/aufs/Makefile refers this macro */ >> +#define AUFS_NAME "aufs" > >If the Makefile refers to the macro, perhaps the Makefile should >define it, and pass it with -D? Indeed. I like Ben’s patch better. But if it must be a separate file, please move the pr_fmt definition out of the Makefile and into that file, too. Code doesn’t belong into a Makefile IMHO. bye, //mirabilos -- FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much *much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider it for my daily use if I hadn't wasted half my life on my zsh setup. :-) -- Frank Terbeck in #!/bin/mksh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1112311628570.14...@herc.mirbsd.org
