Building with the attached .config on x86-64, it does this:
CC arch/um/kernel/smp.o
In file included from include/asm/arch/tlb.h:11,
from include/asm/tlb.h:4,
from arch/um/kernel/smp.c:8:
include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ‘tlb_flush_mmu’:
include/asm-generic/tlb.h:76: error: implicit declaration of function ‘release_pages’
include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ‘tlb_remove_page’:
include/asm-generic/tlb.h:105: error: implicit declaration of function ‘page_cache_release’
make[1]: *** [arch/um/kernel/smp.o] Error 1
make: *** [arch/um/kernel] Error 2
I've been doing the following to fix it. I know it's not the right fix,
(see the earlier thread about it at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/24/441 )
but could the one line fix go into the -stable queue 2.6.23 while a proper
fix goes into 2.6.24?
From: Rob Landley <[email protected]>
Fix build break in User Mode Linux 2.6.23.1.
Signed-off-by: Rob Landley <[email protected]>
---
arch/um/kernel/smp.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
--- linux-2.6.23-rc3/arch/um/kernel/smp.c
+++ linux-2.6.23-new/arch/um/kernel/smp.c
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
#include "linux/percpu.h"
#include "asm/pgalloc.h"
+#include "linux/pagemap.h"
#include "asm/tlb.h"
/* For some reason, mmu_gathers are referenced when CONFIG_SMP is off. */
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:51:50PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> Building with the attached .config on x86-64, it does this:
>
> CC arch/um/kernel/smp.o
> In file included from include/asm/arch/tlb.h:11,
> from include/asm/tlb.h:4,
> from arch/um/kernel/smp.c:8:
> include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ???tlb_flush_mmu???:
> include/asm-generic/tlb.h:76: error: implicit declaration of function ???release_pages???
> include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ???tlb_remove_page???:
> include/asm-generic/tlb.h:105: error: implicit declaration of function ???page_cache_release???
> make[1]: *** [arch/um/kernel/smp.o] Error 1
> make: *** [arch/um/kernel] Error 2
>
> I've been doing the following to fix it. I know it's not the right fix,
> (see the earlier thread about it at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/24/441 )
> but could the one line fix go into the -stable queue 2.6.23 while a proper
> fix goes into 2.6.24?
I think the patches that I have just added to the stable queue for
2.6.23.2 will fix this. If not, please let me know after testing.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 12:54:44 Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:51:50PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Building with the attached .config on x86-64, it does this:
> >
> > CC arch/um/kernel/smp.o
> > In file included from include/asm/arch/tlb.h:11,
> > from include/asm/tlb.h:4,
> > from arch/um/kernel/smp.c:8:
> > include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ???tlb_flush_mmu???:
> > include/asm-generic/tlb.h:76: error: implicit declaration of function
> > ???release_pages??? include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function
> > ???tlb_remove_page???:
> > include/asm-generic/tlb.h:105: error: implicit declaration of function
> > ???page_cache_release??? make[1]: *** [arch/um/kernel/smp.o] Error 1
> > make: *** [arch/um/kernel] Error 2
> >
> > I've been doing the following to fix it. I know it's not the right fix,
> > (see the earlier thread about it at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/24/441 )
> > but could the one line fix go into the -stable queue 2.6.23 while a
> > proper fix goes into 2.6.24?
>
> I think the patches that I have just added to the stable queue for
> 2.6.23.2 will fix this. If not, please let me know after testing.
Where do I find these patches to test? I know where to find the stable
releases, but not the "stable queue".
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt just says there _is_ a stable queue, not
where to access it. Google's first hit for "linux stable queue" was
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/chrisw/stable-queue.git;a=shortlog
which apparently stopped updating in march...
Happy to test the patch you mentioned, if I can figure out where to find it...
Thanks,
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 11:58:15PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 November 2007 12:54:44 Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:51:50PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > Building with the attached .config on x86-64, it does this:
> > >
> > > CC arch/um/kernel/smp.o
> > > In file included from include/asm/arch/tlb.h:11,
> > > from include/asm/tlb.h:4,
> > > from arch/um/kernel/smp.c:8:
> > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ???tlb_flush_mmu???:
> > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h:76: error: implicit declaration of function
> > > ???release_pages??? include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function
> > > ???tlb_remove_page???:
> > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h:105: error: implicit declaration of function
> > > ???page_cache_release??? make[1]: *** [arch/um/kernel/smp.o] Error 1
> > > make: *** [arch/um/kernel] Error 2
> > >
> > > I've been doing the following to fix it. I know it's not the right fix,
> > > (see the earlier thread about it at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/24/441 )
> > > but could the one line fix go into the -stable queue 2.6.23 while a
> > > proper fix goes into 2.6.24?
> >
> > I think the patches that I have just added to the stable queue for
> > 2.6.23.2 will fix this. If not, please let me know after testing.
>
> Where do I find these patches to test? I know where to find the stable
> releases, but not the "stable queue".
>
> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt just says there _is_ a stable queue, not
> where to access it. Google's first hit for "linux stable queue" was
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/chrisw/stable-queue.git;a=shortlog
> which apparently stopped updating in march...
>
> Happy to test the patch you mentioned, if I can figure out where to find it...
It's at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
Chris and I used to have separate queues, but that got messy, I suppose
we should just delete those old copies...
thanks,
greg k-h
On Thursday 15 November 2007 00:02:55 Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 11:58:15PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 12:54:44 Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:51:50PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > Building with the attached .config on x86-64, it does this:
> > > >
> > > > CC arch/um/kernel/smp.o
> > > > In file included from include/asm/arch/tlb.h:11,
> > > > from include/asm/tlb.h:4,
> > > > from arch/um/kernel/smp.c:8:
> > > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ???tlb_flush_mmu???:
> > > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h:76: error: implicit declaration of function
> > > > ???release_pages??? include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function
> > > > ???tlb_remove_page???:
> > > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h:105: error: implicit declaration of
> > > > function ???page_cache_release??? make[1]: *** [arch/um/kernel/smp.o]
> > > > Error 1 make: *** [arch/um/kernel] Error 2
> > > >
> > > > I've been doing the following to fix it. I know it's not the right
> > > > fix, (see the earlier thread about it at
> > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/24/441 ) but could the one line fix go
> > > > into the -stable queue 2.6.23 while a proper fix goes into 2.6.24?
> > >
> > > I think the patches that I have just added to the stable queue for
> > > 2.6.23.2 will fix this. If not, please let me know after testing.
> >
> > Where do I find these patches to test? I know where to find the stable
> > releases, but not the "stable queue".
> >
> > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt just says there _is_ a stable
> > queue, not where to access it. Google's first hit for "linux stable
> > queue" was
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/chrisw/stable-queue.git;a=short
> >log which apparently stopped updating in march...
> >
> > Happy to test the patch you mentioned, if I can figure out where to find
> > it...
>
> It's at:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summar
>y
>
> Chris and I used to have separate queues, but that got messy, I suppose
> we should just delete those old copies...
In a freshly extracted 2.6.23 tarball, I applied the 4 uml-*.patch files from
stable-queue/review-2.6.23-2 in sequence (all applied cleanly), and then did
the following:
cat > mini.conf << EOF &&
CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF=y
CONFIG_HOSTFS=y
CONFIG_LBD=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y
CONFIG_STDERR_CONSOLE=y
CONFIG_UNIX98_PTYS=y
CONFIG_EXT2_FS=y
EOF
make ARCH=um allnoconfig KCONFIG_ALLCONFIG=mini.conf
Then I did:
make -j 2 ARCH=um
And it still breaks:
CC arch/um/kernel/smp.o
In file included from include/asm/arch/tlb.h:11,
from include/asm/tlb.h:4,
from arch/um/kernel/smp.c:8:
include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ‘tlb_flush_mmu’:
include/asm-generic/tlb.h:76: error: implicit declaration of
function ‘release_pages’
include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ‘tlb_remove_page’:
include/asm-generic/tlb.h:105: error: implicit declaration of
function ‘page_cache_release’
make[1]: *** [arch/um/kernel/smp.o] Error 1
make: *** [arch/um/kernel] Error 2
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
My .config is attached.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 02:57:21PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2007 00:02:55 Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 11:58:15PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 12:54:44 Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:51:50PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > > Building with the attached .config on x86-64, it does this:
> > > > >
> > > > > CC arch/um/kernel/smp.o
> > > > > In file included from include/asm/arch/tlb.h:11,
> > > > > from include/asm/tlb.h:4,
> > > > > from arch/um/kernel/smp.c:8:
> > > > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ???tlb_flush_mmu???:
> > > > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h:76: error: implicit declaration of function
> > > > > ???release_pages??? include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function
> > > > > ???tlb_remove_page???:
> > > > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h:105: error: implicit declaration of
> > > > > function ???page_cache_release??? make[1]: *** [arch/um/kernel/smp.o]
> > > > > Error 1 make: *** [arch/um/kernel] Error 2
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been doing the following to fix it. I know it's not the right
> > > > > fix, (see the earlier thread about it at
> > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/24/441 ) but could the one line fix go
> > > > > into the -stable queue 2.6.23 while a proper fix goes into 2.6.24?
> > > >
> > > > I think the patches that I have just added to the stable queue for
> > > > 2.6.23.2 will fix this. If not, please let me know after testing.
> > >
> > > Where do I find these patches to test? I know where to find the stable
> > > releases, but not the "stable queue".
> > >
> > > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt just says there _is_ a stable
> > > queue, not where to access it. Google's first hit for "linux stable
> > > queue" was
> > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/chrisw/stable-queue.git;a=short
> > >log which apparently stopped updating in march...
> > >
> > > Happy to test the patch you mentioned, if I can figure out where to find
> > > it...
> >
> > It's at:
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summar
> >y
> >
> > Chris and I used to have separate queues, but that got messy, I suppose
> > we should just delete those old copies...
>
> In a freshly extracted 2.6.23 tarball, I applied the 4 uml-*.patch files from
> stable-queue/review-2.6.23-2 in sequence (all applied cleanly), and then did
> the following:
>
> cat > mini.conf << EOF &&
> CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF=y
> CONFIG_HOSTFS=y
> CONFIG_LBD=y
> CONFIG_BLK_DEV=y
> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y
> CONFIG_STDERR_CONSOLE=y
> CONFIG_UNIX98_PTYS=y
> CONFIG_EXT2_FS=y
> EOF
> make ARCH=um allnoconfig KCONFIG_ALLCONFIG=mini.conf
>
> Then I did:
>
> make -j 2 ARCH=um
>
> And it still breaks:
>
> CC arch/um/kernel/smp.o
> In file included from include/asm/arch/tlb.h:11,
> from include/asm/tlb.h:4,
> from arch/um/kernel/smp.c:8:
> include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ???tlb_flush_mmu???:
> include/asm-generic/tlb.h:76: error: implicit declaration of
> function ???release_pages???
> include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ???tlb_remove_page???:
> include/asm-generic/tlb.h:105: error: implicit declaration of
> function ???page_cache_release???
> make[1]: *** [arch/um/kernel/smp.o] Error 1
> make: *** [arch/um/kernel] Error 2
> make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>
> My .config is attached.
Hm, not good. I'll let Jeff handle this :)
thanks,
greg k-h
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 01:06:08PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 02:57:21PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On Thursday 15 November 2007 00:02:55 Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 11:58:15PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 12:54:44 Greg KH wrote:
>> > > > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:51:50PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> > > > > Building with the attached .config on x86-64, it does this:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > CC arch/um/kernel/smp.o
>> > > > > In file included from include/asm/arch/tlb.h:11,
>> > > > > from include/asm/tlb.h:4,
>> > > > > from arch/um/kernel/smp.c:8:
>> > > > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ???tlb_flush_mmu???:
>> > > > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h:76: error: implicit declaration of function
>> > > > > ???release_pages??? include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function
>> > > > > ???tlb_remove_page???:
>> > > > > include/asm-generic/tlb.h:105: error: implicit declaration of
>> > > > > function ???page_cache_release??? make[1]: *** [arch/um/kernel/smp.o]
>> > > > > Error 1 make: *** [arch/um/kernel] Error 2
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I've been doing the following to fix it. I know it's not the right
>> > > > > fix, (see the earlier thread about it at
>> > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/24/441 ) but could the one line fix go
>> > > > > into the -stable queue 2.6.23 while a proper fix goes into 2.6.24?
>> > > >
>> > > > I think the patches that I have just added to the stable queue for
>> > > > 2.6.23.2 will fix this. If not, please let me know after testing.
>> > >
>> > > Where do I find these patches to test? I know where to find the stable
>> > > releases, but not the "stable queue".
>> > >
>> > > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt just says there _is_ a stable
>> > > queue, not where to access it. Google's first hit for "linux stable
>> > > queue" was
>> > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/chrisw/stable-queue.git;a=short
>> > >log which apparently stopped updating in march...
>> > >
>> > > Happy to test the patch you mentioned, if I can figure out where to find
>> > > it...
>> >
>> > It's at:
>> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summar
>> >y
>> >
>> > Chris and I used to have separate queues, but that got messy, I suppose
>> > we should just delete those old copies...
>>
>> In a freshly extracted 2.6.23 tarball, I applied the 4 uml-*.patch files from
>> stable-queue/review-2.6.23-2 in sequence (all applied cleanly), and then did
>> the following:
>>
>> cat > mini.conf << EOF &&
>> CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF=y
>> CONFIG_HOSTFS=y
>> CONFIG_LBD=y
>> CONFIG_BLK_DEV=y
>> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y
>> CONFIG_STDERR_CONSOLE=y
>> CONFIG_UNIX98_PTYS=y
>> CONFIG_EXT2_FS=y
>> EOF
>> make ARCH=um allnoconfig KCONFIG_ALLCONFIG=mini.conf
>>
>> Then I did:
>>
>> make -j 2 ARCH=um
>>
>> And it still breaks:
>>
>> CC arch/um/kernel/smp.o
>> In file included from include/asm/arch/tlb.h:11,
>> from include/asm/tlb.h:4,
>> from arch/um/kernel/smp.c:8:
>> include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ???tlb_flush_mmu???:
>> include/asm-generic/tlb.h:76: error: implicit declaration of
>> function ???release_pages???
>> include/asm-generic/tlb.h: In function ???tlb_remove_page???:
>> include/asm-generic/tlb.h:105: error: implicit declaration of
>> function ???page_cache_release???
>> make[1]: *** [arch/um/kernel/smp.o] Error 1
>> make: *** [arch/um/kernel] Error 2
>> make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>
>> My .config is attached.
>
>Hm, not good. I'll let Jeff handle this :)
Could you please try this patch? Can it fix the error?
Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
index 4f3838a..2c3ce4c 100644
--- a/include/linux/swap.h
+++ b/include/linux/swap.h
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#include <linux/mmzone.h>
#include <linux/list.h>
#include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/pagemap.h>
#include <asm/atomic.h>
#include <asm/page.h>
On Thursday 15 November 2007 21:08:32 WANG Cong wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 01:06:08PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> >Hm, not good. I'll let Jeff handle this :)
>
> Could you please try this patch? Can it fix the error?
>
> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <[email protected]>
Oh what a good idea.
Signed-off-by: Rob Landley <[email protected]>
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:01:43PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2007 21:08:32 WANG Cong wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 01:06:08PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > >Hm, not good. I'll let Jeff handle this :)
> >
> > Could you please try this patch? Can it fix the error?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <[email protected]>
>
> Oh what a good idea.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Landley <[email protected]>
Heh, we came full circle here, this was Rob's original patch :)
Rob, I'll queue this up for the next cycle, now that you've verified
that it was not fixed already, thanks for testing.
greg k-h
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:08:32AM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> Could you please try this patch? Can it fix the error?
>
> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
> index 4f3838a..2c3ce4c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> #include <linux/mmzone.h>
> #include <linux/list.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> +#include <linux/pagemap.h>
>
> #include <asm/atomic.h>
> #include <asm/page.h>
If you look further down the file, you see a comment to the effect that this
will break sparc.
Jeff
--
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:12:57AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:08:32AM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> Could you please try this patch? Can it fix the error?
>>
>> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <[email protected]>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
>> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
>> index 4f3838a..2c3ce4c 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>> #include <linux/mmzone.h>
>> #include <linux/list.h>
>> #include <linux/sched.h>
>> +#include <linux/pagemap.h>
>>
>> #include <asm/atomic.h>
>> #include <asm/page.h>
>
>If you look further down the file, you see a comment to the effect that this
>will break sparc.
>
Sorry, I didn't know that. ;(
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:15:27PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> Rob, I'll queue this up for the next cycle, now that you've verified
> that it was not fixed already, thanks for testing.
I wouldn't.
sparc includes swap.h in its pgtable.h. Adding pagemap.h to swap.h
completes an include loop on sparc which blows up its build.
I have a set of patches to fix this in a different way, which I sent
out for comments a few weeks ago. They
add uaccess.h to various futexes.h because these will start
failing to build when the next patch is applied
break the recursion by removing highmem.h from pagemap.h,
which needs nothing related to highmem, and sprinkle includes of
highmem.h in all the files which formerly got it through pagemap.h
now, pagemap.h can be added to swap.h without blowing up sparc
also, the other arches can include swap.h in their pgtables.h,
which they probably should since they define operations on
swp_entry_t, which is defined in swap.h.
Jeff
--
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:51:08AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:15:27PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > Rob, I'll queue this up for the next cycle, now that you've verified
> > that it was not fixed already, thanks for testing.
>
> I wouldn't.
>
> sparc includes swap.h in its pgtable.h. Adding pagemap.h to swap.h
> completes an include loop on sparc which blows up its build.
Ok, nevermind, I'll drop it from my to-add queue :)
thanks for letting me know.
greg k-h
On Friday 16 November 2007 01:15:27 Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:01:43PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 November 2007 21:08:32 WANG Cong wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 01:06:08PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > >Hm, not good. I'll let Jeff handle this :)
> > >
> > > Could you please try this patch? Can it fix the error?
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <[email protected]>
> >
> > Oh what a good idea.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Landley <[email protected]>
>
> Heh, we came full circle here, this was Rob's original patch :)
/me pleads the fifth.
(I'm all for a better fix in .24, but for .23.x this is a one-liner...)
> Rob, I'll queue this up for the next cycle, now that you've verified
> that it was not fixed already, thanks for testing.
Thanks for fixing it.
> greg k-h
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
On Friday 16 November 2007 09:51:08 Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:15:27PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > Rob, I'll queue this up for the next cycle, now that you've verified
> > that it was not fixed already, thanks for testing.
>
> I wouldn't.
>
> sparc includes swap.h in its pgtable.h. Adding pagemap.h to swap.h
> completes an include loop on sparc which blows up its build.
>
> I have a set of patches to fix this in a different way, which I sent
> out for comments a few weeks ago.
I wasn't cc'd, and missed it. I'd like to test this, do you have a link? (Or
a bit more specificity than "a few weeks ago"?)
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 04:00:22PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> I wasn't cc'd, and missed it. I'd like to test this, do you have a
> link? (Or a bit more specificity than "a few weeks ago"?)
Here are the three patches:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=119342916329510&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119342916529516&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119342708426910&w=2
Jeff
--
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
On Saturday 17 November 2007 12:53:57 Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 04:00:22PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > I wasn't cc'd, and missed it. I'd like to test this, do you have a
> > link? (Or a bit more specificity than "a few weeks ago"?)
>
> Here are the three patches:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=119342916329510&w=2
Doesn't contain a patch.
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119342916529516&w=2
Doesn't apply to vanilla 2.6.23, it can't find two files and a couple other
hunks failed.
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:17:49PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Saturday 17 November 2007 12:53:57 Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 04:00:22PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > I wasn't cc'd, and missed it. I'd like to test this, do you have a
> > > link? (Or a bit more specificity than "a few weeks ago"?)
> >
> > Here are the three patches:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=119342916329510&w=2
>
> Doesn't contain a patch.
Took me one minute to locate PATCH 1 + 2:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=119342916429513&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=119342916229500&w=2
Maybe this helps you.
Sam
On Sunday 18 November 2007 15:32:03 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:17:49PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Saturday 17 November 2007 12:53:57 Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 04:00:22PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > I wasn't cc'd, and missed it. I'd like to test this, do you have a
> > > > link? (Or a bit more specificity than "a few weeks ago"?)
> > >
> > > Here are the three patches:
> > >
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=119342916329510&w=2
> >
> > Doesn't contain a patch.
>
> Took me one minute to locate PATCH 1 + 2:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=119342916429513&w=2
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=119342916229500&w=2
>
> Maybe this helps you.
Same problem as previous message: they don't apply to 2.6.23. (I tried both
2.6.23 and 2.6.23.8, just to be sure.)
I don't suppose putting #ifndef guards around whatever sparc.h file hasn't got
them is a reasonable hack to get this worked around during 2.6.23.x?
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.