Bug 100435 - differing patch in kernel srpm for RH 7 and RH 9
Summary: differing patch in kernel srpm for RH 7 and RH 9
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: kernel (Show other bugs)
(Show other bugs)
Version: 9
Hardware: All Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Arjan van de Ven
QA Contact: Brian Brock
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2003-07-22 12:46 UTC by Simon Matter
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:55 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2003-07-22 15:39:15 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Simon Matter 2003-07-22 12:46:20 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030516
Mozilla Firebird/0.6

Description of problem:
Recent source rpms of RedHat errata kernel have always looked the same for RH 7
and 9 with only one differente in the .spec file. Now, the 2.4.20-19.x package
contains a different patch in the source rpm.

While building updated XFS enabled RPMs of the 2.4.20-19.x kernel rpms, I diffed
both source rpms kernel-2.4.20-19.7.src.rpm and kernel-2.4.20-19.9.src.rpm and
it looked like this:

[simix@sup simix]$ diff -r kernel-2.4.20-19.7.src kernel-2.4.20-19.9.src
diff -r kernel-2.4.20-19.7.src/kernel-2.4.spec
< %define release 19.7
> %define release 19.9
< #define nptlarchs %{all_x86}
< %define nptlarchs noarch
> %define nptlarchs %{all_x86}
> #define nptlarchs noarch
diff -r kernel-2.4.20-19.7.src/linux-2.4.20-rmap-updates.patch
< +     ret += try_to_reclaim_buffers(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask);
> +     try_to_reclaim_buffers(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask);

I'm afraid kernel-2.4.20-19.9.src/linux-2.4.20-rmap-updates.patch has a wrong
line 403.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. See Description

Actual Results:  See Description

Expected Results:  See Description

Additional info:

See Description

Comment 1 Rik van Riel 2003-07-22 14:14:19 UTC
the rmap patch should indeed be the same in 7 and 9

however, since the rmap patch depends on some nptl patches I don't think it is
actually applied for the RHL7 errata kernel ...

Comment 2 Simon Matter 2003-07-22 15:28:02 UTC
To mee it looks like the wrong patch, the one from 9, was then applied to the 9
kernel. This is from the patch applied with the 9 kernel, which looks wrong to me:

@@ -850,6 +875,7 @@ static int do_try_to_free_pages(unsigned
        ret += rebalance_inactive(gfp_mask, 100);
        ret += shrink_dcache_memory(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask);
        ret += shrink_icache_memory(1, gfp_mask);
+       try_to_reclaim_buffers(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask);
        // ret += shrink_other_caches( DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask);
        ret += shrink_dqcache_memory(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask);

Comment 3 Arjan van de Ven 2003-07-22 15:39:15 UTC
the rhl9 code is correct. this is not a problem because the patch is only
applied for RHL9 anyway.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.