Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 3)

[email protected] wrote:

* changed back the version-checking when defining bool, this since I'm quite
sure Linux 2.4 and 2.6 share (if not all, then large part of) the drivers. And
2.4 is still compiled with the 2.95 Gcc.

Drivers in 2.4 and 2.6 differ. We don't put 2.4-compatibility code into 2.6. And the bool type won't get into 2.4.

--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-==- -=== =-==-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 3)
    • From: [email protected]

• References:
  • [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 3)
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Pokemon in harzdcore actions point
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 3)
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 3)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]