Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge <-> ATM compile error

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:04:58 +0100 Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:36:40PM -0500, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Adrian Bunk writes: > > >Letting CONFIG_BRIDGE depend on CONFIG_ATM doesn't sound like a good > > >idea,

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge - ATM compile error

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:04:58 +0100 Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:36:40PM -0500, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Adrian Bunk writes: Letting CONFIG_BRIDGE depend on CONFIG_ATM doesn't sound like a good idea, since I doubt all

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge <-> ATM compile error

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:36:40PM -0500, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Adrian Bunk writes: > >Letting CONFIG_BRIDGE depend on CONFIG_ATM doesn't sound like a good > >idea, since I doubt all people using the Bridge code require ATM > >support. > > how about

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge - ATM compile error

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:36:40PM -0500, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Adrian Bunk writes: Letting CONFIG_BRIDGE depend on CONFIG_ATM doesn't sound like a good idea, since I doubt all people using the Bridge code require ATM support. how about the

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge <-> ATM compile error

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Adrian Bunk writes: >Letting CONFIG_BRIDGE depend on CONFIG_ATM doesn't sound like a good >idea, since I doubt all people using the Bridge code require ATM >support. how about the following? = net/atm/common.c 1.58 vs edited = --- 1.58/net/atm/common.c

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge - ATM compile error

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Adrian Bunk writes: Letting CONFIG_BRIDGE depend on CONFIG_ATM doesn't sound like a good idea, since I doubt all people using the Bridge code require ATM support. how about the following? = net/atm/common.c 1.58 vs edited = --- 1.58/net/atm/common.c

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge <-> ATM compile error

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Adrian Bunk writes: >Letting CONFIG_BRIDGE depend on CONFIG_ATM doesn't sound like a good >idea, since I doubt all people using the Bridge code require ATM >support. i agree. >Moving the hooks to the bridge code will give you exactly the same >problems the other

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge <-> ATM compile error

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:11:29AM -0500, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Adrian Bunk writes: > >This patch fixes the following compile error with CONFIG_BRIDGE=y and > >CONFIG_ATM_LANE=m: > > isnt the problem more that CONFIG_ATM=m not CONFIG_ATM_LANE=m? >

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge <-> ATM compile error

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Adrian Bunk writes: >This patch fixes the following compile error with CONFIG_BRIDGE=y and >CONFIG_ATM_LANE=m: isnt the problem more that CONFIG_ATM=m not CONFIG_ATM_LANE=m? perhaps CONFIG_BRIDGE should be dependent on CONFIG_ATM. if atm is a module then bridge

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge - ATM compile error

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Adrian Bunk writes: This patch fixes the following compile error with CONFIG_BRIDGE=y and CONFIG_ATM_LANE=m: isnt the problem more that CONFIG_ATM=m not CONFIG_ATM_LANE=m? perhaps CONFIG_BRIDGE should be dependent on CONFIG_ATM. if atm is a module then bridge cannot

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge - ATM compile error

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:11:29AM -0500, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Adrian Bunk writes: This patch fixes the following compile error with CONFIG_BRIDGE=y and CONFIG_ATM_LANE=m: isnt the problem more that CONFIG_ATM=m not CONFIG_ATM_LANE=m? perhaps

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge - ATM compile error

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Adrian Bunk writes: Letting CONFIG_BRIDGE depend on CONFIG_ATM doesn't sound like a good idea, since I doubt all people using the Bridge code require ATM support. i agree. Moving the hooks to the bridge code will give you exactly the same problems the other way

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge <-> ATM compile error

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:13:05AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > Given the #ifdef mess, perhaps bridge should have the hooks available > independent of the configuration. The problem is the other way round: The bridge code accesses hooks in the ATM code. cu Adrian -- "Is there not

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge <-> ATM compile error

Given the #ifdef mess, perhaps bridge should have the hooks available independent of the configuration. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please

[2.6 patch] fix bridge <-> ATM compile error

This patch fixes the following compile error with CONFIG_BRIDGE=y and CONFIG_ATM_LANE=m: <-- snip --> ... LD .tmp_vmlinux1 net/built-in.o(.init.text+0x3ad1): In function `br_init': : undefined reference to `br_fdb_get_hook' net/built-in.o(.init.text+0x3adb): In function `br_init': :

[2.6 patch] fix bridge - ATM compile error

This patch fixes the following compile error with CONFIG_BRIDGE=y and CONFIG_ATM_LANE=m: -- snip -- ... LD .tmp_vmlinux1 net/built-in.o(.init.text+0x3ad1): In function `br_init': : undefined reference to `br_fdb_get_hook' net/built-in.o(.init.text+0x3adb): In function `br_init': :

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge - ATM compile error

Given the #ifdef mess, perhaps bridge should have the hooks available independent of the configuration. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please

Re: [2.6 patch] fix bridge - ATM compile error

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:13:05AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: Given the #ifdef mess, perhaps bridge should have the hooks available independent of the configuration. The problem is the other way round: The bridge code accesses hooks in the ATM code. cu Adrian -- Is there not