Re: 2.6.19-rc6-mm1

Andrew Morton
2006-11-23T20:57:54Z

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 20:20:40 +0000
Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 12:23:48 +0100
> > Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@tuxland.pl> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Hmmm ... didn't apply cleanly.
> >>
> >> patching file kernel/tsacct.c
> >> Hunk #1 FAILED at 97.
> >> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file kernel/tsacct.c.rej
> >
> > I think your local tree is not clean.
>
> I get this accross the board on my test system too. All clean downloads.
>
> A quick look at the combo-patch and the broken-out patch seems to
> indicate they are not in sync with each other. In the combo-patch we
> have this hunk (which is the one which fails):
>
> --- linux-2.6.19-rc6/kernel/tsacct.c 2006-11-16 23:19:32.000000000 -0800
> +++ devel/kernel/tsacct.c 2006-11-23 01:12:17.000000000 -0800
> @@ -97,7 +97,14 @@ void xacct_add_tsk(struct taskstats *sta
> stats->read_syscalls = p->syscr;
> stats->write_syscalls = p->syscw;
> #ifdef CONFIG_TASK_IO_ACCOUNTING
> - stats->read_bytes = p->ioac->read_bytes
> + stats->read_bytes = p->ioac.read_bytes;
> + stats->write_bytes = p->ioac.write_bytes;
> + stats->cancelled_write_bytes = p->ioac.cancelled_write_bytes;
> +#else
> + stats->read_bytes = 0;
> + stats->write_bytes = 0;
> + stats->cancelled_write_bytes = 0;
> +#endif
>
> In the broken-out directory the only patch which references this file
> has the following different hunk:
>
> --- a/kernel/tsacct.c~io-accounting-via-taskstats
> +++ a/kernel/tsacct.c
> @@ -96,6 +96,15 @@ void xacct_add_tsk(struct taskstats *sta
> stats->write_char = 0;
> stats->read_syscalls = p->syscr;
> stats->write_syscalls = p->syscw;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TASK_IO_ACCOUNTING
> + stats->read_bytes = p->ioac.read_bytes;
> + stats->write_bytes = p->ioac.write_bytes;
> + stats->cancelled_write_bytes = p->ioac.cancelled_write_bytes;
> +#else
> + stats->read_bytes = 0;
> + stats->write_bytes = 0;
> + stats->cancelled_write_bytes = 0;
> +#endif
> }
> #undef KB
> #undef MB
>
> Looking at 2.6.19-rc6 this second version seems completely reasonable.
> The former does not.

Yes, it seems it was me who had the scrogged tree.

Oh well, use /proc/pid/io ;)