Summary: | app-laptop/thinkpad-5.9: linux-2.6.16 compatibility | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | TGL <tom.gl> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Steev Klimaszewski (RETIRED) <steev> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | betelgeuse, pva |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 126972 | ||
Attachments: |
thinkpad-5.9-remove-inter_module.patch
thinkpad-5.9-remove-thinkpadpm-argument.patch |
Description
TGL
2006-03-24 10:38:20 UTC
Created attachment 83027 [details, diff]
thinkpad-5.9-remove-inter_module.patch
patch for issue #1
Created attachment 83028 [details, diff]
thinkpad-5.9-remove-thinkpadpm-argument.patch
patch for issue #2
(In reply to comment #0) > > Well, actually, this one i'm not sure whether it is specific to 2.6.16 kernel. I have just tested on 2.6.15, and the unpatched module doesn't make kernel complain about this parameter. So it seems to be specific to 2.6.16, although i don't know where the difference comes from. I have also tested both patches on 2.6.15, and they seems to work fine there too. So i still don't have a clue whether they should be applied only for `kernel_is gt 2 6 16` or not. Tested here on my Thinkpad 600E, thanks for the patches, committed to CVS, please let me know if there are any problems. Will try to 5.9-r1 stable in 2-3 weeks. (In reply to comment #4) > Tested here on my Thinkpad 600E, thanks for the patches, committed to CVS, > please let me know if there are any problems. Will try to 5.9-r1 stable in 2-3 > weeks. > Have you forgotten to stable the new version or are problems? Yes I had forgotten to request stabelization. Will open a bug shortly, unless you get to it before I get the chance TGL: I'm not kernel hacker, thus may be I'm wrong but it seems to me that it's better to use pxint_doSmapi = (pxint_do_t)symbol_request( smapi_do ); instead of, suggested in your patch pxint_doSuperio = (pxint_do_t)try_then_request_module( __symbol_get("superio_do") , _szSuperioName ); symbol_request is defined include/linux/module.h and it's definition is very similar to the code you wrote, but there are some differences. FEX, it uses symbol_get instead of __symbol_get and thus takes into account MODULE_SYMBOL_PREFIX. What do you think about this? |