| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files |
|---|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
It became out of date (missing newly added files), and seems no longer necessary for builds.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
Due to patch fuzz it was applied again in a different place.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
Due to patch fuzz, it was applied again, so the same code sequence was
repeated twice. Not sure if that caused any bugs, but certainly wasn't
the right thing to do.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch was applied in a completely incorrect spot (due to fuzz),
no one noticed or complained. Meanwhile upstream says the issue
has been resolved differently:
https://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=3759&user=guest&pass=guest
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The new rule was patched into the makefile twice.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
matching
Particularly, this was causing 'devtool modify' to erroneously add those
.orig files into commits. This was getting in the way, if the goal
was to amend/update those existing patches.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
Some architectures e.g. riscv gcc does not add -D_REENTRANT
when enabling pthreads. Help it here by adding these options
while gcc gets fixed
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
Dont build yet
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
Commit b32f3b655189fd89dcfce084b6fda0d379300f75 added this code
but we could do with a commit so people realise why its there.
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
The change was already present in upstream, so we just applied it
again (see bug 10450 for why).
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
Drop backported 0001-BUG-fix-infinite-loop-when-creating-np.pad-on-an-emp.patch.
Drop 0001-BUG-fix-infinite-loop-when-creating-np.pad-on-an-emp.patch as
upstream is using os.path.basename() instead now.
License-Update: License.txt file was update to list licenses of individual components;
not all of them are 3-clause BSD.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
These were adding definitions for the second time
(see bug #10450 for why) or adding an include that isn't anymore
necessary for musl builds.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
