Hi all, i'm running a RH 9.0 (kernel ver- 2.4.20-6) on my intel PC. I have downloaded kernel 2.4.18-14 and wish to apply the ARM patch over it. I got a patch file "patch-2.4.18-rmk1.gz" from ftp://ftp.arm.linux.org.uk/pub/armlinux/source/kernel-patches/v2.4/ I extracted the source under /usr/src/linux-2.4.18-14/.I also kept the patch file here. then i went into my linux source dir i.e /usr/src/linux-2.4.18-14/linux-2.4.18-14. here i ran the command zcat ../patch-2.4.18-rmk1.gz | patch -p1 to apply the patch. here it said something like HUNK failed and then a prompt came - File to patch: i prompted it to skip the patch. I noticed that i kept asking me this for all the files under the arm dir of my linux source. I presumed all those will be missing as i have a intel mac. finally after applying the patch(i don't know wether i did it right) i ran - make clean - make dep - make bzImage it failed on make bzImage saying no rules to make target "bzImage" and said there was an error in some mmu_emu.h file (file name cud be incorrect. sorry don't remember it!). on the ftp site from where i downloaded the ARM patch there were a lot of files for 2.4.18 kernel ver. like patch-2.4.18-rmk2.gz, patch-2.4.18-rmk3.gz the number after rmk was from 1 to 7. In order to successfully apply the patch do i have to dowload all these files??? and are those prompts that came while applying the patch OK??? NE help's appreciated mandeep -----Original Message----- From: Tim Cambrant [mailto:tim@cambrant.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:31 PM To: Phil White Cc: kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org Subject: Re: Gotos On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:49:17AM -0800, Phil White wrote: > The main reason is that gotos are much more efficient than return > code. As a result, there is a school of thought which believes that > every function should have one entrance and one exit. In the kernel, > memory is at a premium so it makes sense to have a bunch of one > instruction jumps to return code, rather than n different copies of > return code for separate cases. > > The goto lover in me will not let me get away without asking this > question: Why do gotos need a good reason to be used? Wouldn't > n different return statements be "harder" to read than gotos which > all go to a common exit point? That makes sense. I'm no programmer really, and I've only ever heard bad things about gotos and "spaghetti-code", so that's the only reason why I thought it looked odd. Thanks for explaining this for me. Tim -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/ -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
