| Message ID | 1487801925-22641-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 22:18 +0000, Arend van Spriel wrote: > Since commit 20e32810bcf4 ("cfg80211: Accept multiple RSSI thresholds > for CQM") the backports need to have S32_MAX and S32_MIN which were > introduced in kernel.h since v3.14. > Applied, thanks. I really need to set up automation for this, to continuously monitor a few trees ... johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
On 23-2-2017 8:49, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 22:18 +0000, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> Since commit 20e32810bcf4 ("cfg80211: Accept multiple RSSI thresholds >> for CQM") the backports need to have S32_MAX and S32_MIN which were >> introduced in kernel.h since v3.14. >> > > Applied, thanks. > > I really need to set up automation for this, to continuously monitor a > few trees ... I create a package nightly for our internal tree and wireless-testing and build for couple of target kernels to run some wifi tests on target systems. So I tend to hit issues pretty soon. Not covering all target kernels though. Gr. AvS -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
> I create a package nightly for our internal tree and wireless-testing > and build for couple of target kernels to run some wifi tests on > target systems. So I tend to hit issues pretty soon. Not covering all > target kernels though. Ok, that's nice. I'm torn between doing something that runs on our existing infrastructure (easy, but internal) or building some kind of infrastructure, likely on the build box we have from the LF... that's harder but accessible to people other than me. Or are there any alternatives? Perhaps if I put the scripts upstream then it doesn't matter that I might actually be running it on our internal infrastructure, since anyone can just take the scripts and run them? johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
On 24-2-2017 13:30, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> I create a package nightly for our internal tree and wireless-testing >> and build for couple of target kernels to run some wifi tests on >> target systems. So I tend to hit issues pretty soon. Not covering all >> target kernels though. > > Ok, that's nice. I'm torn between doing something that runs on our > existing infrastructure (easy, but internal) or building some kind of > infrastructure, likely on the build box we have from the LF... that's > harder but accessible to people other than me. > > Or are there any alternatives? Perhaps if I put the scripts upstream > then it doesn't matter that I might actually be running it on our > internal infrastructure, since anyone can just take the scripts and run > them? The alternative is fine by me. Regards, Arend -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
diff --git a/backport/backport-include/linux/kernel.h b/backport/backport-include/linux/kernel.h index 4ad000c..ea55d7d 100644 --- a/backport/backport-include/linux/kernel.h +++ b/backport/backport-include/linux/kernel.h @@ -73,6 +73,14 @@ #define U32_MAX ((u32)~0U) #endif +#ifndef S32_MAX +#define S32_MAX ((s32)(U32_MAX>>1)) +#endif + +#ifndef S32_MIN +#define S32_MIN ((s32)(-S32_MAX - 1)) +#endif + #ifndef __round_mask #define __round_mask(x, y) ((__typeof__(x))((y)-1)) #define round_up(x, y) ((((x)-1) | __round_mask(x, y))+1)
Since commit 20e32810bcf4 ("cfg80211: Accept multiple RSSI thresholds for CQM") the backports need to have S32_MAX and S32_MIN which were introduced in kernel.h since v3.14. Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> --- backport/backport-include/linux/kernel.h | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)