| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files |
|---|
|
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>
|
|
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 was adding a change to the source file that was already there,
so the lines of code were repeated twice. This didn't create a bug or a
security issue, but it may well have.
Long story:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10450
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: 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>
|
|
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: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
showkey can also be provided by busybox
Signed-off-by: Pascal Bach <pascal.bach@siemens.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
As of the 4.13 kernel, there are configuration + linker combinations
that do not need (or build) crtsavres.o for ppc64 targets. The commit
of interest is:
commit efe0160cfd40a99c052a00e174787c1f4158a9cd
Author: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri May 12 01:56:52 2017 +1000
powerpc/64: Linker on-demand sfpr functions for modules
For final link, the powerpc64 linker generates fpr save/restore
functions on-demand, placing them in the .sfpr section. Starting with
binutils 2.25, these can be provided for non-final links with
--save-restore-funcs. Use that where possible for module links.
This saves about 200 bytes per module (~60kB) on powernv defconfig
build.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
As such, our arch test for crtsavres.o is not enough, we add a secondary
existence check before trying the copy.
[YOCTO #12576]
Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
The oe-core version of python3 patches the purelib use directory to
the system libdir so as to make it work with multilibs properly inside
the patch fix_for_using_different_libdir.patch with:
- 'purelib': '{base}/lib/python{py_version_short}/site-packages',
+ 'purelib': '{base}/'+sys.lib+'/python{py_version_short}/site-packages',
The problem is that this broke the pip3-python package because the
install directory is out of sync when using a multilib version of
python. When ever a module is installed with pip3 install that is a
purelib it will get installed to a location that python3 will never
reference and cause random failures.
This patch fixes the purelib install directory to match the purelib
use directory for externally managed python modules when using
multilibs.
Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
