On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 21:18 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 05:38:53PM -0700, Piet Delaney wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 13:30 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 12:58:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:47:44 -0700 > > > > Tom Rini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 12:30:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700 > > > > > > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > that file got lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > I stole a copy of dwarf2.h from an older patch I had and I now get > > > > > > > > > > > > make: *** No rule to make target > > > > > > `/usr/src/devel/scripts/dwarfh.awk', needed by > > > > > > `include/linux/dwarf2-defs.h'. Stop. > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if it's problem of the patch not actually being there. Are > > > > > things like kernel/kgdb.c around? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's the full diffstat for everything I pulled from > > > > > > Hmm. I think what happened is that while in quilt I can do 'quilt push > > > module.patch' and it will push everything in the series up to and > > > including that, stg will happily push just module.patch onto the stack, > > > unless I do stg push --to=module.patch. Time to reteach my fingers I > > > guess :( > > > > How about not getting fancy with the 'quilt' stuff for now and we > > just have a complete copy of the patches applied for now. I tried > > building both: > > I think you mean not to bother with the 'stacked git' stuff, but that's > what makes any of this useful :)
I thought you were running a series of clones to merge in various parts of the patch, perhaps involving the quilt stuff you use for managing diffs. Perhaps it would be best to explain what your doing. > > > and both were not only missing your dwarf stuff: > > Both aren't correct trees right now, is the problem. Can we get an intact git tree soon? It would be a convenient place for working with the current code. > > > BTW, what the conceptual difference between the two trees. > > Kernel Makefile is the sane but lots of diffs. Is the akpm > > workspace a 2.6.18-rc5 with Andrews 'mm' patch? > > The for_akpm tree is lacking all of the very ugly stuff like core.patch, > i386.patch, etc. Ok, i386.patch has support for hardware breakpoints which apparently is not well tested yet. If we renamed it to i386_untested.patch it would be more obvious when applying the series. Why is core.patch too ugly? Wasn't obvious to me that it's optional for i386 arch. -piet > -- Piet Delaney Phone: (408) 200-5256 Blue Lane Technologies Fax: (408) 200-5299 10450 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________ Kgdb-bugreport mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
