This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Yup. I have a patch for that for linux-2.4.24 and 2.4.26, it'll probably apply cleanly to 2.4.21. Give it a shot: http://kegel.com/crosstool/crosstool-0.28-rc36/patches/linux-2.4.26/linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch
Thanks for the tip. I'm not real up on diff -Naur, and the proper way to make changes :-( I think I found out that the difference is that line 500 in linux-2.4.26/Makefile should be 493 in linux-2.4.21/Makefile. I hope that it works correctly. How do you "efficiently* and correctly port a patch this simple? :-)
What I did was the following:
in a new directory: tar xvjf linux-2.4.21.tar.bz2 mv linux-2.4.21 linux-2.4.21a tar xvjf linux-2.4.21.tar.bz2 modify the linux-2.4.21/Makefile "find" line diff -Naur linux-2.4.21/Makefile linux-2.4.21a/Makefile > bozo
tar xvzf crosstool-0.27-r36 mv crosstool-0.27-r36 crosstool-0.27-r36a tar xvzf crosstool-0.27-r36 mv crosstool-0.27-r36 crosstool-0.27-r36b cd crosstool-0.28-rc36b/patches cp bozo \ crosstool-0.28-rc36b/patches/linux-2.4.21/linux-2.4.21-mkdep-xargs.patch diff -Naur crosstool-0.28-rc36a crosstool-0.28-rc36b
Certainly there must be a more efficient way than this to port a simple kernel patch :-)
$ cd linux-2.4.21 $ cp Makefile Makefile.old $ wget http://kegel.com/crosstool/crosstool-0.28-rc36/patches/linux-2.4.26/linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch $ patch -p1 < linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch patching file Makefile Hunk #1 succeeded at 493 (offset -7 lines). $ cd .. $ diff -u linux-2.4.21/Makefile{.old,} > ~/linux-2.4.21-mkdep-xargs.patch
but that shouldn't be needed unless the patch only applied with fuzz (crosstool is paranoid, and doesn't use fuzz when applying patches).
> I'm also a wee-bit puzzled. Why wouldn't such an obvious fix be > successfully submitted to the kernel folks to be a permanent fix? > Certainly this is more "correct" :-)
Yes. In fact, it's not a bad patch for the Trivial Patch Monkey, http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/trivial/ Maybe I'll submit it.
BTW the 2.6 kernel doesn't suffer from this problem as far as I know. - Dan
-- My technical stuff: http://kegel.com My politics: see http://www.misleader.org for examples of why I'm for regime change
------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |