Re: linux-next: Tree for June 3 (rfkill)

[Gábor Stefanik]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 08:22 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
>> CFG80211=y
>> MAC80211=y
>> RFKILL=m
>>
>> net/built-in.o: In function `cfg80211_netdev_notifier_call':
>> core.c:(.text+0xa678b): undefined reference to `rfkill_blocked'
>> net/built-in.o: In function `cfg80211_dev_free':
>
> Hrm. I thought
>
> config CFG80211
>        tristate "Improved wireless configuration API"
>        depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL
>
> would avoid that. Why doesn't it?
>
> johannes
>

Maybe the "y" state of CFG80211 specifically needs to depend on
RFKILL=y || !RFKILL.

BTW should CFG80211=y really be blocked when RFKILL=m? Shouldn't we
just disable CFG80211 RFKILL support in this case (perhaps via a
separate CONFIG_CFG80211_RFKILL automatically configured depending on
CONFIG_RFKILL)?

-- 
Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)
--
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/