On 31/12/2017 21:43, Stefan Brüns wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 11:54:35 AM CET Dave Plater wrote:
On 31/12/2017 11:10, Basil Chupin wrote:
@ Dave: doing what you suggested didn't work. Perhaps I misread your comment about the "---" and the "---"? I don't suppose you would be so kind as to alter that patch to what it should read in full? Anyway, will try doing it all again tomorrow before I totally "lose it" tonight:-).
I'll try attaching it first, then you can just apply it. If you use Markus's method then you use "patch -p 1 Testing.txt" or "patch -p 0 Testing_Basil_nVidia.patch" in the same directory. The -p option strips x directory levels from the original patch. From the working directory use "find . -name uvm8_va_block.c" to find what should actually be in the "---" and "+++" headers in the patch. Using the "linux-8qdh:/data/Nvidia-384.98 # sh ./NVIDIA*.run --apply-patch Testing.txt" method you are dependent on the -p level that nvidia use in their build script. Haven't used nvidia run files for a while but AFAIR you can use --help and it tells you an advanced help option and maybe there's a way of specifying the -p option that you can play around with. Dave P
The patch is malformed (hint: every line in the diff part has to start with either '+', '-' or ' '). Thanks go to the person who posted in the forum without providing an actual patch file ...
Regards,
Stefan
I never noticed that before so:
@@ -36,6 +36,10 @@
#include "uvm8_perf_prefetch.h"
#include "uvm8_mem.h"
+#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(4,14,9)
+#include