From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ghaskins@novell.com (Gregory Haskins) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:09:55 -0400 Subject: [ltt-dev] Problems with merging patch-2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.126 In-Reply-To: <20090423173921.GA20142@Krystal> References: <49F072D9.3020003@novell.com> <20090423173921.GA20142@Krystal> Message-ID: <49F0BD03.2080305@novell.com> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Gregory Haskins (ghaskins at novell.com) wrote: > >> Hi all, >> I am trying to apply 2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.126 to a clean 2.6.30-rc2 and >> I am getting lots of rejects. I went through one time and resolved all >> the rejects, but the resulting kernel did trace properly so I perhaps >> had some fuzz issues. What kernel base should I be using for this series? >> >> > > Hrm, weird, I may have messed up the packaging. I just released LTTng > 0.127 which should not have such conflicts. > > Here is an example conflict: this is the include/trace/sched.h file in my tree: -------------------------- #ifndef _TRACE_SCHED_H #define _TRACE_SCHED_H #include #include #include #endif -------------------------- patch lttng-instrumentation-scheduler-arch.patch gets the following reject against this file: ----------------------------------- @ -53,4 +53,8 @@ DECLARE_TRACE(sched_signal_send, TP_PROTO(int sig, struct task_struct *p), TP_ARGS(sig, p)); +DECLARE_TRACE(sched_kthread_create, + TP_PROTO(void *fn, int pid), + TP_ARGS(fn, pid)); + #endif ------------------------------ Clearly the file is out of sync with the patch, as there are not any other DECLARE_TRACE instances present. This is a more egregious case (most rejects a more trivial in nature), but it is demonstrative of the unexpected rejects I am getting with 0.126 and 0.127 on top of v2.6.30-rc2. Was the new series mislabeled for -rc2 when I should be using -rc3? I resolved all the rejects in 0.126 yesterday, but the resulting trace was not working properly. ltt-armall output was noticeably terse, and a trace with the kernel-trace and net-trace module only yielded core marker output. I suspect I will find the same after I work through the similar rejects in 0.127, but I will let you know. Regards, -Greg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 266 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ghaskins@novell.com (Gregory Haskins) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:09:55 -0400 Subject: [ltt-dev] Problems with merging patch-2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.126 In-Reply-To: <20090423173921.GA20142@Krystal> References: <49F072D9.3020003@novell.com> <20090423173921.GA20142@Krystal> Message-ID: <49F0BD03.2080305@novell.com> Message-ID: <20090423190955.jmGyhEhQy-i_UmsENXsqc1pfCqfXMY1l79JOVrjoTtk@z> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Gregory Haskins (ghaskins at novell.com) wrote: > >> Hi all, >> I am trying to apply 2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.126 to a clean 2.6.30-rc2 and >> I am getting lots of rejects. I went through one time and resolved all >> the rejects, but the resulting kernel did trace properly so I perhaps >> had some fuzz issues. What kernel base should I be using for this series? >> >> > > Hrm, weird, I may have messed up the packaging. I just released LTTng > 0.127 which should not have such conflicts. > > Here is an example conflict: this is the include/trace/sched.h file in my tree: -------------------------- #ifndef _TRACE_SCHED_H #define _TRACE_SCHED_H #include #include #include #endif -------------------------- patch lttng-instrumentation-scheduler-arch.patch gets the following reject against this file: ----------------------------------- @ -53,4 +53,8 @@ DECLARE_TRACE(sched_signal_send, TP_PROTO(int sig, struct task_struct *p), TP_ARGS(sig, p)); +DECLARE_TRACE(sched_kthread_create, + TP_PROTO(void *fn, int pid), + TP_ARGS(fn, pid)); + #endif ------------------------------ Clearly the file is out of sync with the patch, as there are not any other DECLARE_TRACE instances present. This is a more egregious case (most rejects a more trivial in nature), but it is demonstrative of the unexpected rejects I am getting with 0.126 and 0.127 on top of v2.6.30-rc2. Was the new series mislabeled for -rc2 when I should be using -rc3? I resolved all the rejects in 0.126 yesterday, but the resulting trace was not working properly. ltt-armall output was noticeably terse, and a trace with the kernel-trace and net-trace module only yielded core marker output. I suspect I will find the same after I work through the similar rejects in 0.127, but I will let you know. Regards, -Greg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 266 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: