On Tue, 2 Jun 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2015, John Kacur wrote: > > > =================================================================== > > > --- rt-tests.orig/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c > > > +++ rt-tests/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c > > > @@ -1289,9 +1289,9 @@ static void process_options (int argc, c > > > > > > I fixed your patch manually, but you are doing something wrong generating > > it, see how the function header get's cut off above there? > > No. This is entirely correct. diff cuts off the function declaration > at some random column and it's completely irrelevant to the > correctness of the patch. That line is merily an extra for navigation > purpose and not at all relevant to the patch itself. > > @@ -1289,9 +1289,9 @@ > > would be a completly sufficient header for the hunk. > > The reason why this patch did not apply is, that it is a complete > replacement of the original patch and not a delta patch. > > Anna-Maria should have sent a new series(PATCH V2) instead of patches > which can be mistaken as delta fixes. > > > Thanks, > > tglx Yeah, my guess as to why her patches are failing was wrong, but they are failing. Maybe it's a wordwrap problem. When I try with patch -p1 < annas-patch, I get this. patch -p1 < ~/patches/anna/align_measurement_threads.patch patching file src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 185. patch: **** malformed patch at line 64: par->prio); Thanks John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
