[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: sysklogd -17.1 NMU build broken in mips/mipsel



On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:55:12AM +0000, Thiemo Seufer wrote:

> > $ dpkg -c l/linux-kernel-headers/linux-kernel-headers_2.6.13+0rc3-2_mips.deb |grep cpu-feature
> > -rw-r--r-- root/root      4858 2005-07-12 21:46:46 ./usr/include/asm/cpu-features.h
> > -rw-r--r-- root/root       414 2005-07-12 21:46:46 ./usr/include/asm/mach-generic/cpu-feature-overrides.h
> > -rw-r--r-- root/root       836 2005-07-12 21:46:46 ./usr/include/asm/mach-ip22/cpu-feature-overrides.h
> > -rw-r--r-- root/root      1039 2005-07-12 21:46:46 ./usr/include/asm/mach-ip27/cpu-feature-overrides.h
> > -rw-r--r-- root/root      1215 2005-07-12 21:46:46 ./usr/include/asm/mach-ip32/cpu-feature-overrides.h
> > -rw-r--r-- root/root      1200 2005-07-12 21:46:46 ./usr/include/asm/mach-ja/cpu-feature-overrides.h
> > -rw-r--r-- root/root      1909 2005-07-12 21:46:46 ./usr/include/asm/mach-mips/cpu-feature-overrides.h
> > -rw-r--r-- root/root      1321 2005-07-12 21:46:46 ./usr/include/asm/mach-ocelot3/cpu-feature-overrides.h
> > -rw-r--r-- root/root      1284 2005-07-12 21:46:46 ./usr/include/asm/mach-rm200/cpu-feature-overrides.h
> > -rw-r--r-- root/root      1042 2005-07-12 21:46:46 ./usr/include/asm/mach-sibyte/cpu-feature-overrides.h
> > -rw-r--r-- root/root      1218 2005-07-12 21:46:46 ./usr/include/asm/mach-yosemite/cpu-feature-overrides.h
> > $

> > It looks to me like this is still broken on mips.  A bug on l-k-h is
> > probably in order.

> It is probably (also?) a sysklogd bug, userland code isn't supposed to
> use the kernel's atomic operations.

Definitely "also", then, since l-k-h shouldn't be installing broken headers
:)

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: