Re: [GIT PATCHES] kbuild updates

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:32:04PM +0100, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> 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?

I created the patch so that it would show up in oops reports and
elsewhere and avoid the inevitable question "was this a preempt
kernel?"

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.