Re: [PATCH] PCI: fix build errors with CONFIG_PCI=n

[Randy.Dunlap]

Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 02:34:48PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> > Fix (most of) kernel build for CONFIG_PCI=n.  Fixes these 3 errors:
> >
> > 1. drivers/parport/parport_pc.c:3162: error: `parport_init_mode'
> > undeclared (first use in this function)
>
>
> Life is easier if you do not use attachments.
> (Then I can more easily comment the code.)

I understand.  If the decision were only so simple.

> You write
>
>   -static int __init parport_init_mode_setup(const char *str) {
>   -
>   +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
>   +static int __init parport_init_mode_setup(const char *str)
>
> In my tree I have
>
>   static int __init parport_init_mode_setup(char *str) {
>
> in order to avoid the warning for
>
>   __setup("parport_init_mode=",parport_init_mode_setup);
>
> since the parameter is a int (*setup_func)(char *); - see
>
>   struct obs_kernel_param {
>         const char *str;
>         int (*setup_func)(char *);
>         int early;
>   };

Yes, I'm familiar with that, but I made a patch against current
top of tree.

> Apart from this prototype change I only moved the single line
>
>   static int __initdata parport_init_mode = 0;
>
> outside the #ifdef's. Is that not good enough, and better
> than introducing more #ifdef's? Keeps the source smaller.

It can be good enough.  It keeps the source smaller, at
the expense of adding some unneeded code (the
parport_init_mode_setup() function e.g.).

--
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/