Can you re-create your latest patch so that it applies
like the one it's replacing?
Here's the patch you're replacing:
$ lsdiff crash-4.0-3.14-sym.patch
crash-4.0-3.14/defs.h
crash-4.0-3.14/gdb-6.1/gdb/symtab.c
crash-4.0-3.14/kernel.c
crash-4.0-3.14/symbols.c
$
$ patch -p1 --dry-run < crash-4.0-3.14-sym.patch
patching file defs.h
patching file gdb-6.1/gdb/symtab.c
patching file kernel.c
patching file symbols.c
$
Here's your latest:
$ lsdiff crash-4.0-3.14-sym.1.patch
$
$ patch -p1 --dry-run < crash-4.0-3.14-sym.1.patch
can't find file to patch at input line 2
Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|diff -r -x Makefile crash-4.0-3.14/defs.h crash-4.0-3.14-sym/defs.h
--------------------------
File to patch:
Skip this patch? [y]
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored
can't find file to patch at input line 6
Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|diff -r -x Makefile crash-4.0-3.14/gdb-6.1/gdb/symtab.c crash-4.0-3.14-sym/gdb-6.1/gdb/symtab.c
--------------------------
File to patch:
Skip this patch? [y]
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored
can't find file to patch at input line 17
Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|diff -r -x Makefile crash-4.0-3.14/kernel.c crash-4.0-3.14-sym/kernel.c
--------------------------
File to patch:
Skip this patch? [y]
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored
can't find file to patch at input line 44
Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|diff -r -x Makefile crash-4.0-3.14/symbols.c crash-4.0-3.14-sym/symbols.c
--------------------------
File to patch:
Skip this patch? [y]
Skipping patch.
11 out of 11 hunks ignored
$
Castor Fu wrote:
Oops, I found some problems with that version... Some data was not alwaysinitialized and there were some things which were just lucky to work.I've attached a new patch.Sorry about that folks, castor-----Original Message-----I'm attaching a revised patch against 4.0-3.14... This shouldwork a bit better as I no longer make assumptions about the orderingof symbols, it's less whiny, and I even compiled with with -Werror sothose sign-extension problems should be gone.Thanks for the feedback!
From: crash-utility-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:crash-utility-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Castor Fu
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 11:16 AM
To: Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and development
Subject: RE: modules and data / bss initialization
-----Original Message-----Castor Fu wrote:
From: crash-utility-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:crash-utility-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dave Anderson
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:46 AM
To: Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and development
Subject: Re: modules and data / bss initialization
I don't think this made it out earlier...Here's a fix. I've also added something so 'MODULES_IN_CWD' will work on 2.6since modules will end with .koI hope this looks good to others....
Hi Castor,Upon quick testing with RHEL4 and RHEL5 x86_64 kernels,
this patch certainly looks promising...Although I don't particularly care to see these messages:
ffffffff8810ae80 serio_raw 41157 /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/input/serio/serio_raw.ko
ffffffff8811b580 uhci_hcd 59353 /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/usb/host/uhci-hcd.ko
ffffffff88130b00 shpchp 73069 /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/pci/hotplug/shpchp.ko
unexpected sym __key.10825 8814a180 sec .bss offset e180 mod_base 8813c000
XXX sym __key.10825 @ 8814a180 bfd val 0 section .bss
unexpected sym __key.10826 8814a180 sec .bss offset e180 mod_base 8813c000
XXX sym __key.10826 @ 8814a180 bfd val 0 section .bss
ffffffff88141f80 i2c_core 57793 /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.koI would think they could be CRASHDEBUG(1)'d, couldn't they?
Plus, those error messages will clip 64-bit values as shown
above.I'm also presuming that the new add-symbol-file operation will
harmlessly take a "0" mod_data_start, mod_rodata_start or
mod_bss_start address argument; seemingly it does, since several
of my test modules have 0 as one or more of those start addresses.Anyway, I also would be interested in the experiences of others
on the list who are using different architectures and kernel
versions.Thanks,
Dave
-- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
-- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
