[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd18b0c30804251218r3bd45591p229e8832e8b1e137@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:18:31 +0000
From: "Justin Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>
To: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Venki Pallipadi" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] idle (arch, acpi and apm) and lockdep
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 18:08 +0000, Justin Mattock wrote:
> > O.K. I applied this patch, below are the results:
>
>
>
> > patching file arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 111.
> > Hunk #2 FAILED at 126.
> > Hunk #3 FAILED at 183.
> > Hunk #4 FAILED at 194.
> > 4 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c.rej
> > patching file arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 106.
> > Hunk #2 FAILED at 179.
> > 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> > arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c.rej
> > patching file drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 418.
> > Hunk #2 FAILED at 519.
> > Hunk #3 FAILED at 535.
> > 3 out of 3 FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c.rej
> > pathing file arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 904.
> > Hunk #2 FAILED at 912.
> > 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c.rej
> > patching file include/asm/asm-x86/processor.h
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 723.
> > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILE -- saving rejects to file include/asm-x86/processor.h.rej
> > patching file arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > Hunk #2 succeeded at 44 with fuzz 2.
> >
> > When I compile the kernel I'm receiving this.
> >
> > arch/x86/kernel/process.o: In function `select_idle_routine':
> > process.c:(.cpuinit.text+0x0): multiple definition of `select_idle_routine'
> > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.o:process_32.c(.cpuinit.text+0x0: first defined here
> > arch/x86/kernel/process.o: In function `cpu_idle_wait':
> > process.c:(text+0x16): multiple definition of `cpu_idle_wait'
> > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.o:process_32.c:(.text0x432): first defined here
> > arch/x86/kernel/process.o: In function `mwait_idle_with_hints':
> > process.c:(.text+0x113): multiple definition of 'mwait_idle_with_hints'
> > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.o:process_32.c:(.text+0x1db): first defined here
> > make[1]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/built-in.o] Error 1
> > make: *** [arch/x86/kernel] Error 2
> >
> >
> > Should I just go ahead and try git-pull to see if these patches are
> > applied over there correctly.
> > regards;
>
> That's no good :-/
>
> weird, I have:
>
> # git describe
> v2.6.25-4569-gb69d398
>
> # quilt push
> Applying patch patches/idle-lockdep-1.patch
>
> patching file arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
>
> patching file arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>
> patching file drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> patching file arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
> patching file include/asm-x86/processor.h
>
> patching file arch/x86/kernel/process.c
>
> Now at patch patches/idle-lockdep-1.patch
>
>
> And I did a i386 and x86_64 defconfig build before I send it out.
>
>
I did patch -p1 < xxx.patch
--
Justin P. Mattock
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists