linux-2.6.27.4 headers patch

[Ken Moffat]

2009/6/16 Konrad Mosoń <mosonkonrad at gmail.com>
>
> Hi.
>
> I creating now LFS, and i was on page:
>     5.6. Linux-2.6.27.4 API Headers
> from
>     LFS-BOOK-6.4.
>
> I tryied to run:
>
> $ make headers_check
>
> but i can't becouse i was that errors:
>
>   CHK     include/linux/version.h
>   HOSTCC  scripts/unifdef
> scripts/unifdef.c:209: error: conflicting types for 'getline'
> /usr/include/stdio.h:651: note: previous declaration of 'getline' was here
> make[1]: *** [scripts/unifdef] Error 1
> make: *** [__headers] Error 2
>
> Well... i wrote simple patch, and now this command results success:
>
> diff -up ./scripts/unifdef.c.orig ./scripts/unifdef.c
> --- ./scripts/unifdef.c.orig 2009-06-16 12:00:11.000000000 +0200
> +++ ./scripts/unifdef.c 2009-06-16 11:59:54.000000000 +0200
> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static void             done(void);
> static void             error(const char *);
> static int              findsym(const char *);
> static void             flushline(bool);
> -static Linetype         getline(void);
> +static Linetype         get_line(void);
> static Linetype         ifeval(const char **);
> static void             ignoreoff(void);
> static void             ignoreon(void);
> @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ process(void)
>
> for (;;) {
> linenum++;
> - lineval = getline();
> + lineval = get_line();
> trans_table[ifstate[depth]][lineval]();
> debug("process %s -> %s depth %d",
>    linetype_name[lineval],
> @@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ process(void)
>  * help from skipcomment().
>  */
> static Linetype
> -getline(void)
> +get_line(void)
> {
> const char *cp;
> int cursym;
>
> Before, i found patch on: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/5/249 but i can't apply this, well i wrote my.
> Directory structure:
>
> ./linux-headers.patch
> ./linux-2.6.27.4/
> ./linux-2.6.27.4/scripts/
> ./linux-2.6.27.4/scripts/unifdef.c
>
> Redards to,
> Konrad (morsik) Mosoń
>

 I think this is caused by your host system using a newer glibc than
what is in the book.  Can you confirm that, please ?  I saw the
original report on lkml in May, but at that time nobody else on that
list who looked at it was able to replicate the problem.  At the
moment, I'm slightly puzzled why nobody else has seen this  in LFS.

 Also, we conventionally create patches so that they can be applied
with -p1, not -p0.  I guess I could do that part [if I don't lose my
network connection again ;-) ] but I'd like to understand the
circumstances in which this patch is needed.

 Thanks

ĸen