Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:36:30 -0800 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PCI: fix build errors with CONFIG_PCI=n |
| |
Andries Brouwer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 02:34:48PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > >>Fix (most of) kernel build for CONFIG_PCI=n. Fixes these 3 errors: >> >>1. drivers/parport/parport_pc.c:3162: error: `parport_init_mode' >>undeclared (first use in this function) > > > Life is easier if you do not use attachments. > (Then I can more easily comment the code.)
I understand. If the decision were only so simple.
> You write > > -static int __init parport_init_mode_setup(const char *str) { > - > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI > +static int __init parport_init_mode_setup(const char *str) > > In my tree I have > > static int __init parport_init_mode_setup(char *str) { > > in order to avoid the warning for > > __setup("parport_init_mode=",parport_init_mode_setup); > > since the parameter is a int (*setup_func)(char *); - see > > struct obs_kernel_param { > const char *str; > int (*setup_func)(char *); > int early; > };
Yes, I'm familiar with that, but I made a patch against current top of tree.
> Apart from this prototype change I only moved the single line > > static int __initdata parport_init_mode = 0; > > outside the #ifdef's. Is that not good enough, and better > than introducing more #ifdef's? Keeps the source smaller.
It can be good enough. It keeps the source smaller, at the expense of adding some unneeded code (the parport_init_mode_setup() function e.g.).
-- ~Randy - 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/
| |