| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Commit b32f3b655189fd89dcfce084b6fda0d379300f75 added this code
but we could do with a commit so people realise why its there.
(From OE-Core rev: e4da78229f0bd67fd34928eafe48dbdc9e8da050)
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).
(From OE-Core rev: 549b52d6d16ff80f1adf246e69c3adcc792d1211)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: ddb2be68c713361b1024b33080bf7c160337dbe1)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 0b25fcee333e6207a8596d26adfa65fec85c26df)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: c70d1c07e4e697156bd49c43e2cc800f3085b182)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: a3221aa92fa4423da3b70b8d673cf68be08ad922)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 10ae328607511e7092a9e6f75c8f382b7e3dd27b)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 16c27f3bb7b99193a88949eb85f3a3da725f3a6c)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 9f2ce622866c9766dc861561671ebb3f1c407e0b)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 05b59a502a03b4077208b83a4823e2012146671a)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: ee40781cc12d06912457316211a08ec65e059339)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 1fa0faebd24740556816042f54d399baf84731b2)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: d29d95e627b2303b835a705cb7d55d1e41ddb0a7)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: a70103a6e400caaa87e1d36a7e59be7f3059a3bb)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: bed5ea53c74c4b444b2145e7a83ca9fd44ea30ec)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 33f90716bc9890492cc04c4abfe5506f5555d06a)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: fa3180007502affabbe57cb6366be18fbb9e94f8)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 994e43acc67efeb33d859be071609daa844e9b77)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 3c3f76677759156b8cd87659fb4fefb46eb87d13)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 8d4e250383f08e3cd53db809d718910048b9021b)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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
(From OE-Core rev: 1fc1a5f392ec6773cd520cbbd19b58931c6a2d66)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 49437de120ffdf26396fb295254f51ccc204560a)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 4ff1dbbd33b31212e8ba2bb9f269c80b5f08566c)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 33dadb98c10fdf04d9ed9b6ba57de6257873bcea)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 9d0c090466f97a894660e8f42b3a35a7dcd57f56)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 020ef81aa072c79f427111e5057d29ded849c48c)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 385d26b7f0aeb6085bd7d96332b760057bd24537)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 320f03b8492e5259c45e7c59b62571d5a827ee59)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: c6ec48b718ae674a5b362a3dbfe02420a569ad30)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 7c337dbd59a6f7c9bd06131e5c0ad0de51e1d1e5)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: c94152fee766297b355fec7f6d3d4d8ba7ae5f86)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 923a55e5e3aaab7f11122751e1344b0d535569c0)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 65155f3719051aae2a2e716c719b78ee7ca1bb29)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: f413ae03a61ad8593cc3c0dda11f2bb02cd96c25)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 7ae4ce08071c02beaf09675c2c1ed70617b797dd)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: ca9c8fe634ca91fe1825fae7ebb0d00021ca480b)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 9adf817a638229d69d866fd6f8f48ee23caa6864)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 91e54d9967d8237abf0cc9aab408bad9bbb4c0b7)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 684a2533a2b25b900e12f7da912a2c729d60b69d)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: e88a184fbefa69233e0cc86134808bce7b06d6cf)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: f42195493b85fbd9bdc1ae0089084669c8cd558d)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 856a70cf6ca9137d5c07c2aa9ef447032589504d)
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>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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.
(From OE-Core rev: c74da9f2a5bd5a42f6c5791aeb4cc45973369818)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
showkey can also be provided by busybox
(From OE-Core rev: cddf0a6233cfae1f069c617213b93d4945197eec)
Signed-off-by: Pascal Bach <pascal.bach@siemens.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
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]
(From OE-Core rev: af58819253a2d4526dc8871a17e1492bd1d92951)
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.
(From OE-Core rev: 45afadf0b652922f9e60c5a778acd3612da83306)
Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
When running bitbake -c populate_sdk <image_name>, it is expected that
packages matching SDKIMAGE_INSTALL_COMPLEMENTARY name mask (unless
declared in PACKAGE_EXCLUDE_COMPLEMENTARY) are installed to resulting
SDK. Underlying mechanism issues a package manager install call for set
of complementary packages. However the mechanism doesn't seem to inform
the user all too obviously in case the package manager command behind
install_complementary() method fails -- and since it is combined with
attempt_only=True option, user might end up wondering why several *-dev,
*-dbg packages are missing from resulting SDK.
Improve associated install() method behaviour in affected OpkgPM and
DpkgPM classes so that a problematic state of affairs becomes directly
obvious for bitbake user, resulting in shell output like:
WARNING: someimage-1.0-r0 do_populate_sdk: Unable to install packages.
Command '...' returned 1:
Collected errors:
* Solver encountered 1 problem(s):
* Problem 1/1:
* - package somepkg-dev-1.0-r0.x86 requires somepkg = 1.0-r0, but
none of the providers can be installed
*
* Solution 1:
* - allow deinstallation of someotherpkg-1.1-r1.x86
* - do not ask to install a package providing somepkg-dev
* Solution 2:
* - do not ask to install a package providing somepkg-dev
(From OE-Core rev: 2502bd591c37bf532d02dc6b37fc1e8b5224fb0a)
Signed-off-by: Niko Mauno <niko.mauno@vaisala.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
Integrating the following warning backport:
commit eb371933cf4d3495d0899880b2e0e252ce9db517 upstream.
Coffee Lake CPU on Kaby Lake PCH is possible.
It does exist, and it does work.
The only missed case was this warning here noticed
by Wendy who could get one system with this configuration
and reported the issue for us:
Hardware Configuration
Board ID KBL S DDR4 UDIMM EV CRB
Processor Intel® Processor code named Coffee Lake S, (6+2), 6 cores 12 threads, GT2, A0 (Internal) (QNJ4)
[ 3.220585] WARNING: CPU: 10 PID: 206 at drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c:340 i915_driver_load+0x1210/0x1660 [i915]
[ 3.221312] Modules linked in: hid_generic usbhid i915 i2c_algo_bit drm_kms_helper e1000e syscopyarea sysfillrect sysimgblt nvme fb_sys_fops ptp ahci i2c_hid drm pps_core nvme_core libahci wmi hid video
[ 3.222050] CPU: 10 PID: 206 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 4.13.0-rc5-intel-next+ #1
[ 3.222706] Hardware name: Intel Corporation Kabylake Client platform/KBL S DDR4 UDIMM EV CRB, BIOS KBLSE2R1.R00.X089.P00.1705051000 05/05/2017
Cc: Wendy Wang <wendy.wang@intel.com>
Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20170821235056.9015-1-rodrigo.vivi@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Liwei Song <liwei.song@windriver.com>
(From OE-Core rev: 62acf087dca83ff094b1c0300b5752978807ca17)
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>
|
|
Integrating a configuration change for systemtap:
features/systemtap/systemtap.cfg: enable CONFIG_KERNEL_DEBUG
And porting the aufs warning fix to 4.14 and 4.15:
aufs: fix compile warning
(From OE-Core rev: db2a8c827332c0837d029e99b210036218f8f9dc)
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>
|
|
Integrating the warning/leak fixes:
73873cb152c brd: remove unused brd_mutex
912c53b1b346 audit: fix memleak in auditd_send_unicast_skb.
(From OE-Core rev: 4aec8f304216d5427f22d4a72f9f39be097513cb)
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>
|
Richard Purdie
Alexander Kanavin
Ross Burton
Pascal Bach
Bruce Ashfield
Jason Wessel
Niko Mauno