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).
Tom Veldhouse
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
