Re: 2.4.5-ac4 es1371.o unresolved symbols

[Vojtech Pavlik]

On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 10:06:54AM +0200, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 05:52:39PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 31 May 2001 08:08:45 +0200, 
> > Vojtech Pavlik <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 11:29:06AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> > >> With your patch, if a user selects CONFIG_INPUT_GAMEPORT=m and
> > >> CONFIG_SOUND_ES1370=y then the built in es1370 driver has unresolved
> > >> references to gameport_register_port() which is in a module, vmlinux
> > >> will not link.  That is why I derived CONFIG_INPUT_GAMEPORT based on
> > >> the config options in two separate directories.
> > >
> > >Have you tried the patch? Because the gameport.h define has:
> > >
> > >#if defined(CONFIG_INPUT_GAMEPORT) || (defined(CONFIG_INPUT_GAMEPORT_MODULE) && defined(MODULE))
> > >void gameport_register_port(struct gameport *gameport);
> > >void gameport_unregister_port(struct gameport *gameport);
> > >#else
> > >void __inline__ gameport_register_port(struct gameport *gameport) { return; }
> > >void __inline__ gameport_unregister_port(struct gameport *gameport) { return; }
> > >#endif
> > 
> > When the user has gameport hardware compiled it as a module and they
> > have es1371 bult into the kernel then es1371 silently ignores the
> > gameport, even if the gameport modules has been loaded.  This violates
> > the principle of least surprise, a user configuring both gameport and
> > es1371 expects to use the gameport, kbuild should support that instead
> > of silently ignoring the combination.
> 
> True. Is this worse than the ugliness in your patch?

How about a warning displayed in the config process?

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs