From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregory.haskins@gmail.com (Gregory Haskins) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:58:26 -0400 Subject: [ltt-dev] Problems with merging patch-2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.126 In-Reply-To: <20090423193401.GA23945@Krystal> References: <49F072D9.3020003@novell.com> <20090423173921.GA20142@Krystal> <49F0B9A1.3040301@novell.com> <20090423191243.GA22770@Krystal> <49F0BFCB.9080506@novell.com> <20090423193401.GA23945@Krystal> Message-ID: <49F0D672.6080805@gmail.com> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Gregory Haskins (ghaskins at novell.com) wrote: > >> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> >>> * Gregory Haskins (ghaskins at novell.com) wrote: >>> >>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi Mathieu, >>>> I am seeing more or less the same thing with 0.127. The series has a >>>> ton of conflicts against 30-rc2 and even itself. Its as if the patches >>>> are based on a different tree. >>>> >>>> Its probably operator error, but I cannot see what I am doing wrong. >>>> Its the same procedure I have always used to bring your tree in. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Hmmmmm... it works here... (just tested it again to make sure) >>> >>> Can you give me the exact sequence of operation you use to apply the >>> patchset ? (getting kernel.org tarballs/git, unpacking the lttng >>> patchset, using quilt...) >>> >>> >> Sure, I am using git as the base, and then stgit "import" to pull the >> series in. Here is a dump of my history from my current attempt: >> >> 1070 git clone -l linux-2.6 linux-2.6-ltt >> 1071 cd linux-2.6-ltt/ >> 1072 wget >> http://ltt.polymtl.ca/files/lttng/patch-2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.127.tar.bz2 >> 1073 tar -jxvf patch-2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.127.tar.bz2 >> 1074 git branch >> 1075 git checkout -b master v2.6.30-rc2 >> 1076 git log >> 1077 stg init >> 1078 stg import --ignore -s patch-2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.127/series >> >> I have confirmed that Linus' 2.6.30-rc2 tag is the ancestor that >> immediately precedes the first LTT patch. I have used this same >> procedure for years successfully, including working with LTT. I'm sure >> I am doing something wrong, but I can't see it. >> >> > > Nah, it's my bad. I always check&refresh patches with "fuzz", but I > forgot to refresh them this time. Can you try with LTTng 0.128 ? > > FYI: I had a build error in 0.126 through 0.128 where the smp_processor_id call in include/sched_events_types.h was undefined with the attached config. Reverting "LTTng instrumentation scheduler fix task migration" fixed the problem (though it left a somewhat ominous warning about the now changed parameters to the trace-point which I didnt bother fixing). Hopefully this is enough of a hint about what is wrong, but ping me if you need more info. After I did this, I confirmed that 0.128 does indeed trace again! Thanks again, Mathieu. -Greg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ltt.config URL: -------------- 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: gregory.haskins@gmail.com (Gregory Haskins) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:58:26 -0400 Subject: [ltt-dev] Problems with merging patch-2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.126 In-Reply-To: <20090423193401.GA23945@Krystal> References: <49F072D9.3020003@novell.com> <20090423173921.GA20142@Krystal> <49F0B9A1.3040301@novell.com> <20090423191243.GA22770@Krystal> <49F0BFCB.9080506@novell.com> <20090423193401.GA23945@Krystal> Message-ID: <49F0D672.6080805@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090423205826.T8zn2X06aA5f2_zLRtVcXxkscy6aavfPn0dGrPjyAQA@z> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Gregory Haskins (ghaskins at novell.com) wrote: > >> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> >>> * Gregory Haskins (ghaskins at novell.com) wrote: >>> >>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi Mathieu, >>>> I am seeing more or less the same thing with 0.127. The series has a >>>> ton of conflicts against 30-rc2 and even itself. Its as if the patches >>>> are based on a different tree. >>>> >>>> Its probably operator error, but I cannot see what I am doing wrong. >>>> Its the same procedure I have always used to bring your tree in. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Hmmmmm... it works here... (just tested it again to make sure) >>> >>> Can you give me the exact sequence of operation you use to apply the >>> patchset ? (getting kernel.org tarballs/git, unpacking the lttng >>> patchset, using quilt...) >>> >>> >> Sure, I am using git as the base, and then stgit "import" to pull the >> series in. Here is a dump of my history from my current attempt: >> >> 1070 git clone -l linux-2.6 linux-2.6-ltt >> 1071 cd linux-2.6-ltt/ >> 1072 wget >> http://ltt.polymtl.ca/files/lttng/patch-2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.127.tar.bz2 >> 1073 tar -jxvf patch-2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.127.tar.bz2 >> 1074 git branch >> 1075 git checkout -b master v2.6.30-rc2 >> 1076 git log >> 1077 stg init >> 1078 stg import --ignore -s patch-2.6.30-rc2-lttng-0.127/series >> >> I have confirmed that Linus' 2.6.30-rc2 tag is the ancestor that >> immediately precedes the first LTT patch. I have used this same >> procedure for years successfully, including working with LTT. I'm sure >> I am doing something wrong, but I can't see it. >> >> > > Nah, it's my bad. I always check&refresh patches with "fuzz", but I > forgot to refresh them this time. Can you try with LTTng 0.128 ? > > FYI: I had a build error in 0.126 through 0.128 where the smp_processor_id call in include/sched_events_types.h was undefined with the attached config. Reverting "LTTng instrumentation scheduler fix task migration" fixed the problem (though it left a somewhat ominous warning about the now changed parameters to the trace-point which I didnt bother fixing). Hopefully this is enough of a hint about what is wrong, but ping me if you need more info. After I did this, I confirmed that 0.128 does indeed trace again! Thanks again, Mathieu. -Greg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ltt.config URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 266 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: