On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 09:48:55AM -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> I know I misunderstand things occasionally, but it looks ok to
> me. Isn't that just an artifact of the diff/patch thing? I simply
> added sb.o to the line when I edited it. That's the way I've always
> seen diff act. It deletes the original line and adds in an identical
> line with what I added in. The second line above adds in an identical
> line with sb.o added to the line.
Yes. Of cause you're right. Sorry, you've done one of the right things ...
LART me ;)
> No there isn't a runtime problem. Linus went through a phase recently
> where he forced people to clean up "warnings" during the compile
> stage. If you answer yes to both CONFIG_SOUND_PAS and CONFIG_SOUND_SB
> you get "warinings" like this:
> /mnt/hd/src/linux-2.3.99pre/Rules.make:267: target `uart401.o' given
> more than once in the same rule.
Yepp. These warnings are there becuse of the way the list-style Makefiles work.
You will see lots of them in drivers/net and drivers/scsi, too.
> My change eliminates that by eliminating the need to include both. It
> also makes thing clearer IMHO.
Yepp, adding sb.o is ok - but is has nothing to do with the warnings.
Christoph
--
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
