Re: oops! added --testlinux to all.sh call, now get bin/sh: line1: scripts/mkdep: Argument list too long

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Ken Wolcott wrote:
> > Yup.  I have a patch for that for linux-2.4.24 and 2.4.26,
> > it'll probably apply cleanly to 2.4.21.  Give it a shot:
> > http://kegel.com/crosstool/crosstool-0.28-rc36/patches/linux-2.4.26/linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch
>
>   Thanks for the tip.  I'm not real up on diff -Naur, and the proper way
> to make changes :-(  I think I found out that the difference is that
> line 500 in linux-2.4.26/Makefile should be 493 in
> linux-2.4.21/Makefile.  I hope that it works correctly.  How do you
> "efficiently* and correctly port a patch this simple? :-)

You don't - since it still applies cleanly, you don't need to make any changes at all!

>   What I did was the following:
>
> in a new directory:
> tar xvjf linux-2.4.21.tar.bz2
> mv linux-2.4.21 linux-2.4.21a
> tar xvjf linux-2.4.21.tar.bz2
> modify the linux-2.4.21/Makefile "find" line
> diff -Naur linux-2.4.21/Makefile linux-2.4.21a/Makefile > bozo
>
>
> tar xvzf crosstool-0.27-r36
> mv crosstool-0.27-r36 crosstool-0.27-r36a
> tar xvzf crosstool-0.27-r36
> mv crosstool-0.27-r36 crosstool-0.27-r36b
> cd crosstool-0.28-rc36b/patches
> cp bozo \
> crosstool-0.28-rc36b/patches/linux-2.4.21/linux-2.4.21-mkdep-xargs.patch
> diff -Naur crosstool-0.28-rc36a crosstool-0.28-rc36b
>
>
> Certainly there must be a more efficient way than this to port a simple
> kernel patch :-)

Well, yes.  To make it squeaky-clean, you would do:

$ cd linux-2.4.21
$ cp Makefile Makefile.old
$ wget http://kegel.com/crosstool/crosstool-0.28-rc36/patches/linux-2.4.26/linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch
$ patch -p1 < linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch
patching file Makefile
Hunk #1 succeeded at 493 (offset -7 lines).
$ cd ..
$ diff -u linux-2.4.21/Makefile{.old,} > ~/linux-2.4.21-mkdep-xargs.patch

but that shouldn't be needed unless the patch only applied with
fuzz (crosstool is paranoid, and doesn't use fuzz when applying patches).

> I'm also a wee-bit puzzled.  Why wouldn't such an obvious fix be
> successfully submitted to the kernel folks to be a permanent fix?
> Certainly this is more "correct" :-)

Yes.  In fact, it's not a bad patch for the Trivial Patch Monkey,
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/trivial/
Maybe I'll submit it.

BTW the 2.6 kernel doesn't suffer from this problem as far as I know.
- Dan

--
My technical stuff: http://kegel.com
My politics: see http://www.misleader.org for examples of why I'm for regime change

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com