From aa5b65d1ae8776d79263da948016653cb9bb8e3d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chris Wright Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:34:38 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Patch formatting updates for release. --- review/module-per-cpu-alignment-fix.patch | 2 +- review/sys_set_mempolicy-mode-check.patch | 2 -- review/x86_64-srat-dual-core-amd.patch | 1 + 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/review/module-per-cpu-alignment-fix.patch b/review/module-per-cpu-alignment-fix.patch index a87f973a2a3..381ee85cf4c 100644 --- a/review/module-per-cpu-alignment-fix.patch +++ b/review/module-per-cpu-alignment-fix.patch @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Subject: [PATCH] Module per-cpu alignment cannot always be met From: Rusty Russell -[PATCH] Module per-cpu alignment cannot always be met +Fwd from Daniel Drake . The module code assumes noone will ever ask for a per-cpu area more than SMP_CACHE_BYTES aligned. However, as these cases show, gcc asks sometimes diff --git a/review/sys_set_mempolicy-mode-check.patch b/review/sys_set_mempolicy-mode-check.patch index 7d04d07d5e9..949b659a6cf 100644 --- a/review/sys_set_mempolicy-mode-check.patch +++ b/review/sys_set_mempolicy-mode-check.patch @@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ Subject: [PATCH] sys_set_mempolicy() doesnt check if mode < 0 From: Eric Dumazet -[PATCH] sys_set_mempolicy() doesnt check if mode < 0 - A kernel BUG() is triggered by a call to set_mempolicy() with a negative first argument. This is because the mode is declared as an int, and the validity check doesnt check < 0 values. Alternatively, mode could be diff --git a/review/x86_64-srat-dual-core-amd.patch b/review/x86_64-srat-dual-core-amd.patch index bb9435736f3..0ff68cc0b8a 100644 --- a/review/x86_64-srat-dual-core-amd.patch +++ b/review/x86_64-srat-dual-core-amd.patch @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ Just drop the bogus check. Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen Signed-off-by: Chris Wright Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman +--- Index: linux-2.6.12/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c =================================================================== -- 2.47.3