drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c: In function 'receive_chars':
drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c:275: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
--- linux-2.6.26.noarch/drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c~ 2008-07-21 17:13:21.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.26.noarch/drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c 2008-07-21 17:13:37.000000000 -0400
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static void serial_txx9_initialize(struc
static inline void
receive_chars(struct uart_txx9_port *up, unsigned int *status)
{
- struct tty_struct *tty = up->port.info->tty;
+ struct tty_struct *tty = up->port.info->port.tty;
unsigned char ch;
unsigned int disr = *status;
int max_count = 256;
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:16:59 -0400
Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c: In function 'receive_chars':
> drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c:275: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
Already fixed ages ago. Its in a patch that didn't get to Linus yet - see
the linux-next tree for the stuff pending.
drivers/serial/icom.c: In function 'recv_interrupt':
drivers/serial/icom.c:733: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
--- linux-2.6.26.noarch/drivers/serial/icom.c~ 2008-07-21 18:08:30.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.26.noarch/drivers/serial/icom.c 2008-07-21 18:13:00.000000000 -0400
@@ -730,7 +730,7 @@ static void xmit_interrupt(u16 port_int_
static void recv_interrupt(u16 port_int_reg, struct icom_port *icom_port)
{
short int count, rcv_buff;
- struct tty_struct *tty = icom_port->uart_port.info->tty;
+ struct tty_struct *tty = icom_port->uart_port.info->port.tty;
unsigned short int status;
struct uart_icount *icount;
unsigned long offset;
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:13:55 -0400
Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> drivers/serial/icom.c: In function 'recv_interrupt':
> drivers/serial/icom.c:733: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
NAK. Already in the ttydev tree but not yet gone to Linus
Alan
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:00:28PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:16:59 -0400
> Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c: In function 'receive_chars':
> > drivers/serial/serial_txx9.c:275: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
>
> Already fixed ages ago. Its in a patch that didn't get to Linus yet - see
> the linux-next tree for the stuff pending.
Odd. This breakage happened with the merge in -git8
Why didn't the associated fixes go along with that merge ?
If it was fixed ages ago, that implies we knowingly merged broken code,
which seems suboptimal. If nothing else, we're breaking bisectability
by merging in two batches.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
> Odd. This breakage happened with the merge in -git8
> Why didn't the associated fixes go along with that merge ?
Because they weren't fully tested against the clashing changes between
the tty tree, firmware and some other cleanups of unidentified origin.
Alan
Hi Alan,
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:07:42 +0100 Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:13:55 -0400
> Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > drivers/serial/icom.c: In function 'recv_interrupt':
> > drivers/serial/icom.c:733: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
>
> NAK. Already in the ttydev tree but not yet gone to Linus
I have just sent a similar patch. I have to ask why you sent only some
of these patches since they were known to break some builds and you had
the fix patches already ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Alan Cox writes:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:13:55 -0400
> Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > drivers/serial/icom.c: In function 'recv_interrupt':
> > drivers/serial/icom.c:733: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
>
> NAK. Already in the ttydev tree but not yet gone to Linus
Well then why on earth did you send Linus the patch that broke stuff
in the first place? That seems like a pretty unfriendly act to me.
Paul.
> > NAK. Already in the ttydev tree but not yet gone to Linus
>
> I have just sent a similar patch. I have to ask why you sent only some
> of these patches since they were known to break some builds and you had
> the fix patches already ...
I sent the first batch only because some later stuff didnt apply and I
happen to believe in testing patches before sending them (something I
note certain other people clearly do after shitting the lot at Linus)
I spent the past two days travelling, and all the net time I could get
trying to get the patches merged and tested. Everyone and their
grandmother keep patching the tty code again and again. I just had
another go before bed - its now six pulls in a row someone has broken the
patches.
Quite frankly if you want to moan about the fact I've been working till
4am trying to sort this mess out you can go see figure 1.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:56:46 +1000
Paul Mackerras <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alan Cox writes:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:13:55 -0400
> > Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > drivers/serial/icom.c: In function 'recv_interrupt':
> > > drivers/serial/icom.c:733: error: 'struct uart_info' has no member named 'tty'
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
> >
> > NAK. Already in the ttydev tree but not yet gone to Linus
>
> Well then why on earth did you send Linus the patch that broke stuff
> in the first place? That seems like a pretty unfriendly act to me.
See previous replies, apologies to this address.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 03:05:19AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > NAK. Already in the ttydev tree but not yet gone to Linus
> >
> > I have just sent a similar patch. I have to ask why you sent only some
> > of these patches since they were known to break some builds and you had
> > the fix patches already ...
>
> I sent the first batch only because some later stuff didnt apply and I
> happen to believe in testing patches before sending them (something I
> note certain other people clearly do after shitting the lot at Linus)
So what stopped you from just sending the two diffs already posted here
twice today ? They're not dependant upon anything else, and the files
in questions haven't changed in months.
Leaving the tree broken, and NACKing attempts to fix it don't seem to be
particularly productive for anyone.
> I spent the past two days travelling, and all the net time I could get
> trying to get the patches merged and tested. Everyone and their
> grandmother keep patching the tty code again and again. I just had
> another go before bed - its now six pulls in a row someone has broken the
> patches.
>
> Quite frankly if you want to moan about the fact I've been working till
> 4am trying to sort this mess out you can go see figure 1.
Please, less drama, more fixing.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
> Leaving the tree broken, and NACKing attempts to fix it don't seem to be
> particularly productive for anyone.
I NAKKed the fix because it would have broken the merge *AGAIN* which
would have messed up the merging for everything else all for the matter
of what four hours ?
> Please, less drama, more fixing.
Go see figure 1