Re: backports spatch question
Ben Greear <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.backports |
|---|---|
| Organization | Candela Technologies |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/5/21 12:26 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 12:26 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >> On 7/5/21 12:19 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 12:17 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >>>> >>>> Did you test it? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, pretty sure we do it basically all the time. We don't have kernels >>> that new yet in most of our test setups. >>> >>>> Because that should be logically identical to what I tried if I read this file properly: >>> >>> Actually, your version might be more correct than ours ... >>> >>> I dunno. I note we also have an <linux/rfkill.h> include in cfg80211.h, >>> but that should be there upstream too, so not sure. >> >> There are a lot of rfkill.h files, what logic makes the backports code include the specific >> backport/backport-include/linux/rfkill.h file? I suspect that isn't working for the cfg80211.h >> file for whatever reason. > > It's just an additional -I flag on the compiler command line, or - > isystem or something like that. > > johannes > my cfg80211.h shows this line: #include <uapi/linux/rfkill.h> As does stock 5.13 upstream kernel. So I guess that would not include the hacked backport/backport-include/linux/rfkill.h I can probably hack around that one way or another, but suggestions for proper fix? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in