On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 06:09:31PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Rasmus Andersen]
> > How about this patch? It moves the offending struct to the __init
> > function where it is used and inside an existing #ifdef CONFIG_PCI.
>
> H, if you're messing around with the pci device table, why
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 06:09:31PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Rasmus Andersen]
How about this patch? It moves the offending struct to the __init
function where it is used and inside an existing #ifdef CONFIG_PCI.
H, if you're messing around with the pci device table, why not
[Rasmus Andersen]
> How about this patch? It moves the offending struct to the __init
> function where it is used and inside an existing #ifdef CONFIG_PCI.
H, if you're messing around with the pci device table, why not just
convert it to use new-style PCI init? This is fairly easy to do (I
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 04:37:40PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Pavel Machek]
> > I'd say that warning is more acceptable than #ifdef... In cases where
> > warnings can be eliminating without ifdefs, that's okay, but this...
>
> In this case it is dead weight in the object file -- and for
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 04:37:40PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Pavel Machek]
I'd say that warning is more acceptable than #ifdef... In cases where
warnings can be eliminating without ifdefs, that's okay, but this...
In this case it is dead weight in the object file -- and for
[Rasmus Andersen]
How about this patch? It moves the offending struct to the __init
function where it is used and inside an existing #ifdef CONFIG_PCI.
H, if you're messing around with the pci device table, why not just
convert it to use new-style PCI init? This is fairly easy to do (I
[Pavel Machek]
> I'd say that warning is more acceptable than #ifdef... In cases where
> warnings can be eliminating without ifdefs, that's okay, but this...
In this case it is dead weight in the object file -- and for machines
that can least afford it (CONFIG_PCI=n is mostly for the low end,
Hi!
> The following patch removes a 'defined but not used' warning from drivers/
> new/hp100.c when compiling without CONFIG_PCI (240t12p3). It should apply
> cleanly.
I'd say that warning is more acceptable than #ifdef... In cases where
warnings can be eliminating without ifdefs, that's okay,
Hi!
The following patch removes a 'defined but not used' warning from drivers/
new/hp100.c when compiling without CONFIG_PCI (240t12p3). It should apply
cleanly.
I'd say that warning is more acceptable than #ifdef... In cases where
warnings can be eliminating without ifdefs, that's okay, but
[Pavel Machek]
I'd say that warning is more acceptable than #ifdef... In cases where
warnings can be eliminating without ifdefs, that's okay, but this...
In this case it is dead weight in the object file -- and for machines
that can least afford it (CONFIG_PCI=n is mostly for the low end,
Hi.
The following patch removes a 'defined but not used' warning from drivers/
new/hp100.c when compiling without CONFIG_PCI (240t12p3). It should apply
cleanly.
--- linux-240-t12-pre3-clean/drivers/net/hp100.cSat Nov 4 23:27:07 2000
+++ linux/drivers/net/hp100.c Sat Dec 2 16:07:27
Hi.
The following patch removes a 'defined but not used' warning from drivers/
new/hp100.c when compiling without CONFIG_PCI (240t12p3). It should apply
cleanly.
--- linux-240-t12-pre3-clean/drivers/net/hp100.cSat Nov 4 23:27:07 2000
+++ linux/drivers/net/hp100.c Sat Dec 2 16:07:27
12 matches
Mail list logo
