[asterisk-bugs] [DAHDI-linux 0017959]: dahdi_dummy fails compile on Fedora 13 64-bit with kzalloc implicit declaration error

[Asterisk Bug Tracker]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=17959 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                glen201
Assigned To:                sruffell
====================================================================== 
Project:                    DAHDI-linux
Issue ID:                   17959
Category:                   dahdi_dummy
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   major
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     assigned
JIRA:                        
Reviewboard Link:            
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2010-09-07 08:36 CDT
Last Modified:              2010-09-07 11:38 CDT
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    dahdi_dummy fails compile on Fedora 13 64-bit with
kzalloc implicit declaration error
Description: 
Debug below is from 2.4.0 but 2.3.0.1 has the same compile time error

====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0126671) sruffell (administrator) - 2010-09-07 11:38
 https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=17959#c126671 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
glen201: The core of DAHDI will provide timing on all supported kernels. 
So, dahdi_dummy should really never be needed.

Regarding how to determine what the actual timing source is...if there is
a hardware span (as shown by dahdi_scan), the timing is coming from the
hardware device.  Otherwise, the timing is coming from the kernel timer.  
Where the core of DAHDI is getting the timing really shouldn't be something
the user should have to concern themselves with.

Is there a case that I'm not thinking of? 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2010-09-07 11:38 sruffell       Note Added: 0126671                          
======================================================================