From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932600AbVIEVcA (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:32:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932596AbVIEVcA (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:32:00 -0400 Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk ([213.162.97.75]:1970 "EHLO mail.metronet.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932600AbVIEVb7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:31:59 -0400 From: Alistair John Strachan To: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [GIT PATCHES] kbuild updates Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:32:04 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.90 Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton References: <20050905174150.GA17923@mars.ravnborg.org> <200509052035.14156.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> <20050905201345.GA26106@mars.ravnborg.org> In-Reply-To: <20050905201345.GA26106@mars.ravnborg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509052232.04135.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 05 September 2005 21:13, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:35:14PM +0100, Alistair John Strachan wrote: > > On Monday 05 September 2005 18:41, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > Hi Linus. > > > > > > kbuild updates as accumulated over the last few months. > > > All patches has been in -mm in one or several versions. > > > > > > Most noteworthy: > > > 1) -Wundef added to CFLAGS. This is the cause of several new warnings, > > > which for the most part has been fixed for now. > > > 2) "PREEMPT" in UTS_VERSION. So we complain when dealing > > > with modules compiled for a wrong kernel > > > > How is this different from the preempt module vermagic? > > > > ~$ modinfo agpgart | grep vermagic > > vermagic: 2.6.13 preempt gcc-4.0 > > My bad. Adding PREEMT to UTS_VERSION makes it visible in uname -a. > I see. I can understand adding an extraversion for SMP and experimental patches (like Ingo's RT work), but why is it useful to differentiate (by name) between preempt and non-preempt kernels? Do distributors wish to package both in parallel? -- Cheers, Alistair. 'No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway.' Third year Computer Science undergraduate. 1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.