On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Did that problem affect arch/i386/kernel/process.c? > > Please verify the following:
I checked, and the patched version of the code looks exactly as you say it should. There was a message during patching: patching file arch/i386/kernel/process.c Hunk #2 succeeded at 380 (offset -32 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 433 (offset -32 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 539 (offset -32 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 557 (offset -32 lines). Hunk #6 succeeded at 700 (offset -32 lines). But I verified by hand that the hunks were put in the right place and they were. What kernel was the patch originally generated against? Maybe those extra 32 lines in the kernel.org 2.6.18 are affecting things somehow... Vince _______________________________________________ perfmon mailing list [email protected] http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/perfmon/
