Re: [PATCH] idle (arch, acpi and apm) and lockdep

[Justin Mattock]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Justin Mattock <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 18:08 +0000, Justin Mattock wrote:
>  >  > O.K. I applied this patch, below are the results:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > > patching file arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
>  >  > Hunk #1 FAILED at 111.
>  >  > Hunk #2 FAILED at 126.
>  >  > Hunk #3 FAILED at 183.
>  >  > Hunk #4 FAILED at 194.
>  >  > 4 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>  >  > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c.rej
>  >  > patching file arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>  >  > Hunk #1 FAILED at 106.
>  >  > Hunk #2 FAILED at 179.
>  >  > 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>  >  > arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c.rej
>  >  > patching file drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>  >  > Hunk #1 FAILED at 418.
>  >  > Hunk #2 FAILED at 519.
>  >  > Hunk #3 FAILED at 535.
>  >  > 3 out of 3 FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c.rej
>  >  > pathing file arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
>  >  > Hunk #1 FAILED at 904.
>  >  > Hunk #2 FAILED at 912.
>  >  > 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c.rej
>  >  > patching file include/asm/asm-x86/processor.h
>  >  > Hunk #1 FAILED at 723.
>  >  > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILE -- saving rejects to file include/asm-x86/processor.h.rej
>  >  > patching file arch/x86/kernel/process.c
>  >  > Hunk #2 succeeded at 44 with fuzz 2.
>  >  >
>  >  > When I compile the kernel I'm receiving this.
>  >  >
>  >  > arch/x86/kernel/process.o: In function `select_idle_routine':
>  >  > process.c:(.cpuinit.text+0x0): multiple definition of `select_idle_routine'
>  >  > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.o:process_32.c(.cpuinit.text+0x0: first defined here
>  >  > arch/x86/kernel/process.o: In function `cpu_idle_wait':
>  >  > process.c:(text+0x16): multiple definition of `cpu_idle_wait'
>  >  > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.o:process_32.c:(.text0x432): first defined here
>  >  > arch/x86/kernel/process.o: In function `mwait_idle_with_hints':
>  >  > process.c:(.text+0x113): multiple definition of 'mwait_idle_with_hints'
>  >  > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.o:process_32.c:(.text+0x1db): first defined here
>  >  > make[1]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/built-in.o] Error 1
>  >  > make: *** [arch/x86/kernel] Error 2
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > Should I just go ahead and try git-pull to see if these patches are
>  >  > applied over there correctly.
>  >  > regards;
>  >
>  >  That's no good :-/
>  >
>  >  weird, I have:
>  >
>  >  # git describe
>  >  v2.6.25-4569-gb69d398
>  >
>  >  # quilt push
>  >  Applying patch patches/idle-lockdep-1.patch
>  >
>  > patching file arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
>  >
>  > patching file arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>  >
>  > patching file drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>  >  patching file arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
>  >  patching file include/asm-x86/processor.h
>  >
>  > patching file arch/x86/kernel/process.c
>  >
>  >  Now at patch patches/idle-lockdep-1.patch
>  >
>  >
>  >  And I did a i386 and x86_64 defconfig build before I send it out.
>  >
>  >
>
>  I did patch -p1 < xxx.patch
>
>  --
>  Justin P. Mattock
>

Hello;
 Thank you very much for that patch, the system is running and I dont
need to use nohz=off ("knock on wood")
I dont know why the patch failed the first time, so I decide to clean
the board and start fresh, then manually go in and add and subtract
what
you had from the patch.( "I need to get better at reading and
writting") So far I'm not receiving any freezes, but it's only been
around 20 minutes. I'll leave the system running for a while to see if
there's a freeze.
again thank you very much,
regards;

-- 
Justin P. Mattock
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/