* [PATCH] for drivers/char/sysrq.c
@ 2001-09-20 3:45 Richard Gooch
2001-09-20 12:38 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Richard Gooch @ 2001-09-20 3:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: torvalds, crutcher+kernel; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hi, Linus. The appended patch fixes drivers/char/sysrq.c so that it
doesn't do a bugus redefine of wakeup_bdflush(), nor attempt to pass
arguments to it. The changes in 2.4.10-pre12 broke sysrq.c compiling.
<whinge>
How did something this basic get submitted in the first place?!?
Doesn't anyone bother compiling patches before sending to Linus?
This is the second time today I've had to patch the kernel just to get
the rotten thing to compile. I'm not happy that whoever put in those
__builtin_expect()'s didn't bother testing with THE RECOMMENDED
COMPILER!!! It's not the first time that sort of thing has happened.
</whinge>
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
--- sysrq.c~ Wed Sep 19 21:25:45 2001
+++ sysrq.c Wed Sep 19 21:37:31 2001
@@ -32,7 +32,6 @@
#include <asm/ptrace.h>
-extern void wakeup_bdflush(int);
extern void reset_vc(unsigned int);
extern struct list_head super_blocks;
@@ -221,7 +220,7 @@
static void sysrq_handle_sync(int key, struct pt_regs *pt_regs,
struct kbd_struct *kbd, struct tty_struct *tty) {
emergency_sync_scheduled = EMERG_SYNC;
- wakeup_bdflush(0);
+ wakeup_bdflush();
}
static struct sysrq_key_op sysrq_sync_op = {
handler: sysrq_handle_sync,
@@ -232,7 +231,7 @@
static void sysrq_handle_mountro(int key, struct pt_regs *pt_regs,
struct kbd_struct *kbd, struct tty_struct *tty) {
emergency_sync_scheduled = EMERG_REMOUNT;
- wakeup_bdflush(0);
+ wakeup_bdflush();
}
static struct sysrq_key_op sysrq_mountro_op = {
handler: sysrq_handle_mountro,
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] for drivers/char/sysrq.c
2001-09-20 3:45 [PATCH] for drivers/char/sysrq.c Richard Gooch
@ 2001-09-20 12:38 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-09-20 12:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Gooch; +Cc: torvalds, crutcher+kernel, linux-kernel
> How did something this basic get submitted in the first place?!?
> Doesn't anyone bother compiling patches before sending to Linus?
> This is the second time today I've had to patch the kernel just to get
> the rotten thing to compile. I'm not happy that whoever put in those
> __builtin_expect()'s didn't bother testing with THE RECOMMENDED
> COMPILER!!! It's not the first time that sort of thing has happened.
> </whinge>
It got broken because the stable kernel API isnt. When I submitted it to
Linus I missed one specific random api of the week variance. Its been in
the -ac tree and vendor distros for a while, so it was tested.
Alan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-09-20 12:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-09-20 3:45 [PATCH] for drivers/char/sysrq.c Richard Gooch
2001-09-20 12:38 ` Alan Cox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®