what do the following patches actually *fix*?
00_backout-gcc-3_0-patch-1
00_gcc-30-volatile-xtime-1
I'm trying to get 2.4.20 patched up by using the -aa split patches for
2.4.20 and I'm incorporating only the things I want, but I use gcc 3.2
for compiling, and these confused me a bit.
--
Austin Gonyou <[email protected]>
Coremetrics, Inc.
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 14:58, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:54:08PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> > what do the following patches actually *fix*?
> >
> > 00_backout-gcc-3_0-patch-1
> > 00_gcc-30-volatile-xtime-1
> >
> > I'm trying to get 2.4.20 patched up by using the -aa split patches for
> > 2.4.20 and I'm incorporating only the things I want, but I use gcc 3.2
> > for compiling, and these confused me a bit.
>
> Oooh, I had lengthy discussion with andrea on those two. These patches
> are a) grossly misnamed and b) should be one. They change xtime to a volatile
> because andrea thinks that's safer.
>
> The background on the silly naming is that earlier 2.4 kernels had xtime
> not volatile but the prototype (or vice versa) and gcc3 didn't like that.
Ahh...kewl. thanks much. I was thinking that, but I was very confused by
the naming versus the code. (not that I was *that* sure of the code
anyway, but you know.) :)
> So the best idea would be to merge them into 00_xtime_volatile-1 if
> you want to keep them.
Ok...that sounds like a plan. Thanks so much.
--
GrandMasterLee <[email protected]>
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:54:08PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> what do the following patches actually *fix*?
>
> 00_backout-gcc-3_0-patch-1
> 00_gcc-30-volatile-xtime-1
>
> I'm trying to get 2.4.20 patched up by using the -aa split patches for
> 2.4.20 and I'm incorporating only the things I want, but I use gcc 3.2
> for compiling, and these confused me a bit.
Oooh, I had lengthy discussion with andrea on those two. These patches
are a) grossly misnamed and b) should be one. They change xtime to a volatile
because andrea thinks that's safer.
The background on the silly naming is that earlier 2.4 kernels had xtime
not volatile but the prototype (or vice versa) and gcc3 didn't like that.
So the best idea would be to merge them into 00_xtime_volatile-1 if
you want to keep them.
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 15:01, GrandMasterLee wrote:
[...]
> > The background on the silly naming is that earlier 2.4 kernels had xtime
> > not volatile but the prototype (or vice versa) and gcc3 didn't like that.
>
> Ahh...kewl. thanks much. I was thinking that, but I was very confused by
> the naming versus the code. (not that I was *that* sure of the code
> anyway, but you know.) :)
>
>
>
> > So the best idea would be to merge them into if
> > you want to keep them.
>
> Ok...that sounds like a plan. Thanks so much.
Here is the patch. I think it should be OK. I just took the two
questioned patches and applied them to 2.4.20, then diffed against a
pristine 2.4.20.
--The GrandMaster
<[email protected]>