[PATCH][Jaunty SRU][Intrepid SRU] UBUNTU: Fix the error value in /proc/iomem passed by the kernel paramter "reserve=" on X86_64

[Amit Kucheria]

On 09 Jun 30, Keng-Yü Lin wrote:
> Sorry I have a silly typo, please s/gif/git/
> 
>   git://kernel.ubuntu.com/lexical/lexical-karmic.git lp370003
>   git://kernel.ubuntu.com/lexical/lexical-jaunty.git lp370003
>   git://kernel.ubuntu.com/lexical/lexical-intrepid.git lp370003
> 
> 2009/6/30  <keng-yu.lin at canonical.com>:
> > From: Keng-Yu Lin <keng-yu.lin at canonical.com>
> >
> > SRU Justificatoin:
> >
> > IMPACT: kernel parameter "reserve=" is not handled well on AMD64 and the value in /proc/iomem is not padded by 0xf in the front. The bug LP#187671 depends on this bug.
> >
> > FIX: A patch from Zhang Rui fixed. The patch is also summitted to the mainline. The status on mainline bugzilla is "RESOLVED CODE_FIX". It may be merged into the mainline some day.
> >
> > TEST: I tested on Karmic, Jaunty and Intrepid. The value in /proc/iomem is correct after applying this patch. The original reporter also tested on 2.6.28-11 kernel and reported to work well.
> >
> > OriginalAuthor: Zhang Rui (rui.zhang at intel.com)
> > OriginalLocation: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13253
> > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/370003
> > Bug: #370003
> >
> > Request-pull
> >  git://kernel.ubuntu.com/lexical/lexical-karmic.gif lp370003
> >  git://kernel.ubuntu.com/lexical/lexical-jaunty.gif lp370003
> >  git://kernel.ubuntu.com/lexical/lexical-intrepid.gif lp370003
> >
> >  They are basically the same; the line numbers differ.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Keng-Yu Lin <keng-yu.lin at canonical.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/resource.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
> > index ac5f3a3..78b0872 100644
> > --- a/kernel/resource.c
> > +++ b/kernel/resource.c
> > @@ -787,7 +787,7 @@ static int __init reserve_setup(char *str)
> >        static struct resource reserve[MAXRESERVE];
> >
> >        for (;;) {
> > -               int io_start, io_num;
> > +               unsigned int io_start, io_num;
> >                int x = reserved;
> >
> >                if (get_option (&str, &io_start) != 2)
> > --
> > 1.6.0.4
> >

ACK. Looks fairly straighforward.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amit Kucheria, Kernel Engineer || amit.kucheria at canonical.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------