On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 03:23:29PM +0200, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 4/27/23 15:12, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > Do you think it's okay for me to push this now, so that it gets
> > included in 9.3.0, or should I rather wait until after the release?
>
> It's a bug fix and as such can and in fact sh
On 4/27/23 15:12, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 02:57:54PM +0200, Michal Prívozník wrote:
>> On 4/27/23 14:22, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>>> This fixes cross-building in some scenarios.
>>>
>>> Specifically, when building for armv7l on x86_64, has_header()
>>> will see the x86_64
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 02:57:54PM +0200, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 4/27/23 14:22, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > This fixes cross-building in some scenarios.
> >
> > Specifically, when building for armv7l on x86_64, has_header()
> > will see the x86_64 version of the linux/kmv.h header and
> > con
On 4/27/23 14:22, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> This fixes cross-building in some scenarios.
>
> Specifically, when building for armv7l on x86_64, has_header()
> will see the x86_64 version of the linux/kmv.h header and
> consider it to be usable. Later, when an attempt is made to
> actually include i
This fixes cross-building in some scenarios.
Specifically, when building for armv7l on x86_64, has_header()
will see the x86_64 version of the linux/kmv.h header and
consider it to be usable. Later, when an attempt is made to
actually include it, the compiler will quickly realize that
things can't
