Re: 2.4.24 patch apply failed on vanilla kernel

[wwp <subscript-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Micha Feigin,


On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:07:11 +0200 Micha Feigin <michf-+lLcF8/aw9x6auLlOhE+pQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:

[snip]
> > > patching file arch/i386/kernel/acpi.c
> > > patching file arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c
> > > patching file arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c
> > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 1106.
> > > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> > > arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c.rej patching file arch/x86_64/kernel/acpi.c
> > > patching file drivers/acpi/Config.in
> > > patching file drivers/acpi/bus.c
> > > 
> > > Please CC me on replies.
> > 
> > Same here, you're not alone in the dark:
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 1106.
> > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c.rej
> > 
> > 
> 
> I don't know what is the right solution, but its trying to replace
> - 	for (bit = 0; bit < BITS_PER_LONG; bit++) {
> with
> + 	for (bit = 0; bit < MAX_APICS; bit++) {
> While the line actually reads:
> 	for (cpu = 0; cpu < NR_CPUS; cpu++) {
> 
> I left it as is and for now its working.

Currently, 2.4.24 uses NR_CPUS, and the fixes in the uv patch
(http://www.hardrock.org/kernel/current-updates/) uses BITS_PER_LONG.

Currently, the acpi patch tries to replace BITS_PER_LONG.
That's a bit confusing :-). That's why we need an answer from the ACPI guy
who manage this part of the patch, IMO.


Regards,

-- 
wwp


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms.
Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html