[ltt-dev] Problems with merging patch-2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.126

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Gregory Haskins (ghaskins at novell.com) wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Gregory Haskins (ghaskins at novell.com) wrote:
> >   
> >> Hi all,
> >>   I am trying to apply 2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.126 to a clean 2.6.30-rc2 and
> >> I am getting lots of rejects.  I went through one time and resolved all
> >> the rejects, but the resulting kernel did trace properly so I perhaps
> >> had some fuzz issues.  What kernel base should I be using for this series?
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > Hrm, weird, I may have messed up the packaging. I just released LTTng
> > 0.127 which should not have such conflicts.
> >
> >   
> 
> Here is an example conflict:
> 
> this is the include/trace/sched.h file in my tree:
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> #ifndef _TRACE_SCHED_H
> #define _TRACE_SCHED_H
> 
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> #include <linux/tracepoint.h>
> 
> #include <trace/sched_event_types.h>
> 
> #endif
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> patch lttng-instrumentation-scheduler-arch.patch gets the following
> reject against this file:
> 
> -----------------------------------
> 
> @ -53,4 +53,8 @@ DECLARE_TRACE(sched_signal_send,
>      TP_PROTO(int sig, struct task_struct *p),
>          TP_ARGS(sig, p));
>  
> +DECLARE_TRACE(sched_kthread_create,
> +    TP_PROTO(void *fn, int pid),
> +        TP_ARGS(fn, pid));
> +
>  #endif
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 


Here I get a 

Applying patch lttng-instrumentation-scheduler-arch.patch
patching file include/trace/sched.h
Hunk #1 succeeded at 6 with fuzz 2 (offset -47 lines).

It's OK to leave this event there. I'll review all the "fuzzed" patches
and make sure to refresh them so they correctly apply without fuzz.

Mathieu

> Clearly the file is out of sync with the patch, as there are not any
> other DECLARE_TRACE instances present.
> 
> This is a more egregious case (most rejects a more trivial in nature),
> but it is demonstrative of the unexpected rejects I am getting with
> 0.126 and 0.127 on top of v2.6.30-rc2.   Was the new series mislabeled
> for -rc2 when I should be using -rc3?
> 
> I resolved all the rejects in 0.126 yesterday, but the resulting trace
> was not working properly.  ltt-armall output was noticeably terse, and a
> trace with the kernel-trace and net-trace module only yielded core
> marker output.  I suspect I will find the same after I work through the
> similar rejects in 0.127, but I will let you know.
> 
> Regards,
> -Greg
> 
> 



> _______________________________________________
> ltt-dev mailing list
> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20090423/faccf716/attachment-0003.pgp>