On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:33:25PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > I have verified it on target as well. As you do not tell what the > incompatibility > is I would like you to describe the problem. Until you have specified it > more I'm lowering the serverity of this bug.
I've investigated this a bit, and the reason it fails for me, but not for you, is most probably you are using the default patch's maximum fuzz level of 2, while I am using a manually specified max fuzz level of 1. Actually the fuzz level is not specified by me directly, but it is what patch.apply script from the linux-2.6 source package uses. The problem looks like this: | patching file fs/sysfs/sysfs.h | Hunk #2 FAILED at 30. | 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/sysfs/sysfs.h.rej and is about the following hunk: | @@ -21,7 +30,6 @@ extern void sysfs_drop_dentry(struct sys | extern int sysfs_setattr(struct dentry *dentry, struct iattr *iattr); | | extern struct rw_semaphore sysfs_rename_sem; | -extern struct super_block * sysfs_sb; | extern const struct file_operations sysfs_dir_operations; | extern const struct file_operations sysfs_file_operations; | extern const struct file_operations bin_fops; the DSA I mentioned in my original report added another extern variable declaration just before sysfs_rename_sem. That is why it applies with fuzz=2, but not with fuzz=1. -- Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marcin.owsiany.pl/ GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
