From: Garrett C. <yan...@gm...> - 2009-03-22 18:16:49
|
On Mar 20, 2009, at 9:19, "Serge E. Hallyn" <se...@us...> wrote: > (Against the March intermediate release) > > mqns support is expect in 2.6.30, not 2.6.29. > > Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn <se...@us...> > --- > .../kernel/containers/mqns/check_mqns_enabled.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/containers/mqns/check_mqns_enabled.c b/ > testcases/kernel/containers/mqns/check_mqns_enabled.c > index a369921..169e8c9 100644 > --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/mqns/check_mqns_enabled.c > +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/mqns/check_mqns_enabled.c > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ int main() > int pid; > mqd_t mqd; > > - if (tst_kvercmp(2,6,29) < 0) /* only in -mm so far > actually */ > + if (tst_kvercmp(2,6,30) < 0) /* only in -mm so far > actually */ > return 1; > > mq_unlink("/checkmqnsenabled"); > -- > 1.5.6.3 Sorry if I contradict what I said earlier, but what if someone backported this patch to an earlier kernel version? What if someone didn't enable this support in their kernel with one of the supported versions? Is there a better way to check for this support and other version specific features (autoconf?)? I'm starting to see what Mike F. was trying to bring up about the futility of version checking like this... Thanks! -Garrett |