Kernel headers changes in F10?

[John W. Linville]

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 07:13:27PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> John W. Linville wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:33:45AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >>On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 11:59 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>>There seem to be a number of changes in the 2.6.26 kernel headers 
> >>>causing compile breakage (and/or in the new glibc), I've had to fix both 
> >>>of:
> >>>
> >>>svgalib, really fixed
> >>>
> >>>gkrellm-wifi, conflict between <net/if.h>  and <linux/wireless.h>, 
> >>>worked around by no longer including <net/if.h>
> >>I always like solutions which involve "include fewer kernel headers",
> >>but we should probably investigate that in case there is some need for
> >>someone to include both. John?
> >
> >Almost certainly because of this commit:
> >
> >commit 2218228392080f0ca2fc2974604e79f57b12c436
> >Author: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill at shutemov.name>
> >Date:   Tue Apr 22 16:38:55 2008 +0300
> >
> >    Make linux/wireless.h be able to compile
> >
> >    Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill at shutemov.name>
> >    Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville at tuxdriver.com>
> >
> >I may have let this slip by due to the "able to compile" bit --
> >should I not have merged it?  I don't have a record or recollection
> >of what motivated the patch originally.
> >
> 
> Erm,
> 
> I'm no git guru, can you tranlate this:
> commit 2218228392080f0ca2fc2974604e79f57b12c436
> 
> Into an url showing the diff for me, then I can take try to take a guess at 
> what this is trying to fix, and how this might be done without conflicting 
> with net/if.h

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=2218228392080f0ca2fc2974604e79f57b12c436

As I said, I have no record or memory of why this patch was needed.
It looks like it was a mistake for me to let it though in the first
place.  My guess is that he wanted to include linux/wireless.h from
userland without including other kernel headers...?

I am happy to entertain arguments in favor of reverting (or keeping)
this patch.

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville at redhat.com