From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Drives missing at boot
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:55:53 -0700
Message-ID: <20100803115553.e4c51104.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
References: <AANLkTimVkG9TFgyOTTnrztBjqT4JoOzFaP268vWLAAm9@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C317C04.20500@kernel.org>
	<AANLkTilupyieml9yaWO9BUNPmQQ0g2w1HLWj6R9MwDZf@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C32CE50.6010501@kernel.org>
	<AANLkTikehTO1j6Gd7Y_g32_P6Yg9KB8Z8qwbNJh10aOU@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C341598.6040004@kernel.org>
	<AANLkTik4zkcIyVxwtX8GA1BsQSZaAeODpPlY3mRVBc-4@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C34A1D5.1090202@kernel.org>
	<AANLkTilgQSu3qi7qoTtjnV22r-8Sh1hbDAB_nlPImWNt@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C34B8BE.5080504@kernel.org>
	<AANLkTilDbrA6lLPSOAtA8_4mLNkUZibHweTliqU5jd03@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C44BD42.3030904@kernel.org>
	<7141c88bc8c27f26c2187252c0594318.squirrel@thechecks.ca>
	<4C45AF40.7030800@kernel.org>
	<AANLkTinxDjPCk46eItZrXziTbf6efqvNNNTbkZDXIbns@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C483BF4.3090006@kernel.org>
	<AANLkTinwJLE=jjwG5zL8UBO91tzDpX36_W9GORKag8RK@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100803114105.7f199878.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
	<AANLkTi=bKn3t8eD=n8tDeZrn-mXsEzFHGj46-Z5U9EGA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:40963 "EHLO
	rcsinet10.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756565Ab0HCS5h convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:57:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=bKn3t8eD=n8tDeZrn-mXsEzFHGj46-Z5U9EGA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Paul Check <paul@thechecks.ca>, Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:47:25 -0700 Mark Knecht wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.co=
m> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:07:11 -0700 Mark Knecht wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Tejun,
> >> =A0 =A0I'm finally home and trying to get back to this. I'm really=
 a bad
> >> programmer so I don't know what I've done wrong but it seems patch
> >> isn't happy with me.
> >>
> >> c2stable linux # patch --dry-run -p1 <../ata_piix-sidpr-lock.patch
> >> patching file drivers/ata/ata_piix.c
> >> patch: **** malformed patch at line 13:
> >
> > Whenever the patch file was saved on this system, line 13 of it was
> > split (probably by an email client). =A0Whenever I see this, I just
> > join (merge) that line and the next one and try again... sometimes
> > several lines are malformed and have to be fixed like this.
> >
>=20
> Randy,
>    Could very well be what happened. I added line 13 (the printk) by =
hand
>=20
> <SNIP - ORIGINAL PATCH FILE>
> struct piix_host_priv {
>  =A0 =A0 =A0 const int *map;
>  =A0 =A0 =A0 u32 saved_iocfg;
> + =A0 =A0 =A0 spinlock_t sidpr_lock; =A0/* FIXME: remove once locking=
 in EH is fixed */
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 void __iomem *sidpr;
> };
>=20
> <SNIP - MY CHANGE BY HAND>
> struct piix_host_priv {
>        const int *map;
>        u32 saved_iocfg;
> +       spinlock_t sidpr_lock;  /* FIXME: remove once locking in EH i=
s fixed */
> +       printk("MWK - ata_sidpr patch applied!\n");
>        void __iomem *sidpr;
> };
>=20
> Maybe I should have just put it on the same line as the previous
> spinlock command?
>=20
> I'll play with it and see if I can get it working.


Ah, so you added a line to a patch file.  That means that the patch
block header must be changed from something like this:

@@ -964,12 +968,15 @@

to like this:

@@ -964,12 +968,16 @@

Any text following the second "@@" is just a comment so it does not mat=
ter.

The ,12  ,15   ,16   are all line counts. The ",12" is the number of li=
nes
in the before version of the patch.  The ",15" or ",16" is the number o=
f lines
in the after version of the patch, so you would need to increase it by =
1 if
you added one line.   Or you can just put the printk on the same line a=
s another
part of the patch and it won't matter.  :)


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your cod=
e ***