On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 14:55, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 12:22, Andrew Gaffney wrote: > > > >> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > >> > >>> I think a kernel specific conditional patch should be included in > XFree86 as it is unlikely the linux kernel headers are going to change back. > >> > >> > >> Thanks for the heads up on that one. > > > > > > > > Such as this? > > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/xfree/patchsets/4.3.0/patch/9020_all_4.3.0-fix-2.5-headers-rate-period.patch > > > > It'll be going into 4.3.0-r4, which is in progress. > > > > Donnie > > > I can't say I like such a global change: > > +/* Deal with spurious kernel header change */ > +#if defined(LINUX_VERSION_CODE) && defined(KERNEL_VERSION) > +# if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,5,42) > +# define rate period > +# endif > +#endif > > I think it would be better to put the conditionals around each instance > of 'rate', which I believe is only in one location anyway. If your > patch causes a problem, trying to figure out the cause might get messy > by just substituting period for rate .... it won't be obvious such a > substitution is going on to somebody not in the know (no obvious naming > convention used here).
This is a backport from XFree86 CVS, not something I made up. So if there is a problem, it's theirs. Donnie
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
