Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, had I known about that it would have been a much better solution :)
> Well, next time...
There's also gcc's #include_next which is often useful in this respect.
I use it for backport patches.
HTH
--
Michael S. Tsirkin
Staff Engineer, Mellanox
Jason> If you keep the -I you can do this:
Jason> Source: #include
Jason> #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,16)
Jason> #include_next // goes to linux/include/mutex.h
Jason> #else
Jason> The benifit being that the ugly hackery in the source files
Jason> can
Quoting Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: RFC: kill CFLAGS in makefiles?
>
> I guess the question still remains of how to deal with things like
> (new include files outside of include/rdma).
Hmm. Okay then. I personally would probably just as well link these
to under the real inc
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:24:07PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Nothing. But that's not what we had for mutex backport.
> We had
>
> #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,16)
> #include
> #else
> #include
> #endif /* XXX end of hack */
If you keep the -I you can do this:
Source:
I guess the question still remains of how to deal with things like
(new include files outside of include/rdma).
- R.
___
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please vis
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting r. Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Subject: Re: RFC: kill CFLAGS in makefiles?
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Things should be named properly. Anything else sounds like inviting
trouble.
whats wrong in the naming eg of
#include
#include
#include
Nothing.
Quoting r. Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: RFC: kill CFLAGS in makefiles?
>
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >Things should be named properly. Anything else sounds like inviting
> >trouble.
>
> whats wrong in the naming eg of
>
> #include
> #include
> #include
Nothing. But that'
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Things should be named properly. Anything else sounds like inviting trouble.
whats wrong in the naming eg of
#include
#include
#include
Or.
___
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/m
Quoting r. Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: RFC: kill CFLAGS in makefiles?
>
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> >Yea, that's confusing, too.
> >We do it inside an ifdef anyway, so why not
> >#include
> >
> >and be done with it?
>
> b/c we have
>
> #include
>
> so its more general,
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Yea, that's confusing, too.
We do it inside an ifdef anyway, so why not
#include
and be done with it?
b/c we have
#include
so its more general, we can take advantage of putting anything
past/future crazy below include/ at the openib svn
Or
Quoting r. Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: RFC: kill CFLAGS in makefiles?
>
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >Hi!
> >I'd like to propose moving
> >EXTRA_CFLAGS += -Idrivers/infiniband/include
> >out of our makefiles in svn.
> >
> >Users already must know about include/rdma in linux tre
11 matches
Mail list logo
