On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 19:23 +0100, Jurij Smakov wrote: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 03:53:38PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > From: Jurij Smakov <email@example.com> > > Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 18:25:36 +0100 > > > > > The problem with vmlinux.lds.S appears to be trivial, I have simply > > > merged it in manually and rediffed. However, I can't quite understand > > > what's going on with setup_64.c. This is a hunk which causes trouble: > > > > The debian kernel was 2.6.39 based when I sent these patches out > > initially. > > > > But, since you took long to get to this, the kernel is now on 3.0.x > > > > The code in question moved from setup_64.c to cpu.c in 3.0.x, and > > that's why the backport tried to add the code to setup_64.c because > > that's where it in fact was in 2.6.39 > > > > You can probably use the upstream commits as-is. > > > > Here is something pre-cooked, and in fact what I submitted to > > -stable for 3.0.x. Don't forget to add the arch/sparc/kernel/ds.c > > bug fix on top. > > Thanks. I've built a test source package including all necessary > patches and a test build is running now. Ben tells me, however, that > 3.0.2 which includes all these patches and fixes is expected to come > out on Monday, and will be uploaded to unstable shortly after that, so > I don't think it makes sense to commit them as a separate patch set > anymore. It seems we had some initial confusion about which kernel version you were going to work on. You offered to provide patches 'against the current wheezy kernel', which at the time (5th August) was 2.6.39-3. However the current version in sid/unstable was already 3.0.0-1, and this was due to move into wheezy/testing within a few days. I think I must have assumed that you meant 3.0.0-1, but I failed to specify that in my follow-up. I apologise for wasting your time on the backport. If you ever want to backport for Debian again, we should agree exactly which kernel version is meant as the baseline. Ben.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part