Re: [PATCH 1/6] lib/decompress_*: only include <linux/slab.h> ifSTATIC is not defined

[Phillip Lougher]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/04/2009 05:47 PM, Phillip Lougher wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon,  3 Aug 2009 16:58:16 +0200
> > > Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > These includes were added by 079effb6933f34b9b1b67b08bd4fd7fb672d16ef to
> > > > fix the build when using kmemtrace. However this is not necessary when
> > > > used to create a compressed kernel, and actually creates issues (brings
> > > > a lot of things unavailable in the decompression environment), so don't
> > > > include it if STATIC is defined.
> > > The description "actually creates issues (brings a lot of things
> > > unavailable in the decompression environment)" is inadequate.  Please
> > > describe te problem this patch fixes more completely so that others
> > > (ie: me) can decide whether this patch is needed in 2.6.32, 2.6.31.
> > > 2.6.30, ...
> > >
> > > This patch conflicts heavily with
> > >
> > > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/bzip2-lzma-remove-nasty-uncompressed-size-hack-in-pre-boot-environment.patch
> > >
> > > What should we do about that?
> >
> > What do you normally do in this situation?  I'm happy to send a revised
> > bzip2-lzma-remove-nasty-uncompressed-size-hack-in-pre-boot-environment.patch
> >
> > that would apply cleanly on-top of Alvin's patch, but, this will obviously
> > create dependencies on his patch being applied.
>
> The general principle is that if A alone creates a more functional
> environment than B alone, then B should be applied on top of A, and vice
> versa.  This is especially so if A is a stable candidate.
>
> It *sounds* like your patch is B here, but I am not sure from the
> description.

Gosh, who wants to get into the my patch is better than yours
argument.  I certainly don't...

My patch series cleans up the code and fixes a number of
rough edges (which I expect to hit when I try to make Squashfs
use the new decompression code).  Albin's looks to be adding a
new set of LZO functionality.  Regarding the conflicting
patches in question, my patch removes a hack, Albin's moves
#include <slab.h> into code covered by #ifndef STATIC, so it
doesn't pull in loads of unnecessary definitions when the
file is being built in the pre-boot environment.

I personally can't decide which is A or B.

Phillip

--
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/