Andrew,
I'm using http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/ timestamped "10-Nov-2007
22:46".
1. I was getting a bunch of patch conflicts, until I realized that this
latest set of patches was to be applied against 2.6.24-rc2 (your mm.patch
gave it away :-) The last snapshot was against 2.6.24-rc1.
What should be the official way in which people using the above URL know
which base to apply it against: is looking at mm.patch OK? If so, then
I'd like to suggest that you move mm.patch to the very beginning of your
series file: that way if the first patch causes a conflict, it'd be a
hint to the person to investigate why, and mm.patch is fairly clear about
it (moreso than when any other patch will fail to apply).
2. A related question: if someone uses the above URL for mm patches, how
should they report a unique identifier (ala git-describe)?
3. I still have patch conflicts, with this series of patches:
Applying patch..suppress-aout-library-support-if-config_binfmt_aout.patch
error: patch failed: arch/m68k/kernel/process.c:316
error: arch/m68k/kernel/process.c: patch does not apply
Context reduced to (2/2) to apply fragment at 120
error: patch failed: fs/binfmt_elf.c:961
error: fs/binfmt_elf.c: patch does not apply
error: patch failed: include/linux/Kbuild:17
error: include/linux/Kbuild: patch does not apply
I also had to comment out these two due to new or dependent conflicts:
suppress-aout-library-support-if-config_binfmt_aout-checkpatch-fixes.patch
make-frame_pointer-default=y.patch
4. With the above 3 patches not applied, I got a couple of compile errors,
which I reported separately.
Cheers,
Erez.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
I'm using http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/ timestamped "10-Nov-2007
22:46".
1. I was getting a bunch of patch conflicts, until I realized that this
latest set of patches was to be applied against 2.6.24-rc2 (your mm.patch
gave it away :-) The last snapshot was against 2.6.24-rc1.
What should be the official way in which people using the above URL know
which base to apply it against: is looking at mm.patch OK? If so, then
I'd like to suggest that you move mm.patch to the very beginning of your
series file: that way if the first patch causes a conflict, it'd be a
hint to the person to investigate why, and mm.patch is fairly clear about
it (moreso than when any other patch will fail to apply).
2. A related question: if someone uses the above URL for mm patches, how
should they report a unique identifier (ala git-describe)?
3. I still have patch conflicts, with this series of patches:
Applying patch..suppress-aout-library-support-if-config_binfmt_aout.patch
error: patch failed: arch/m68k/kernel/process.c:316
error: arch/m68k/kernel/process.c: patch does not apply
Context reduced to (2/2) to apply fragment at 120
error: patch failed: fs/binfmt_elf.c:961
error: fs/binfmt_elf.c: patch does not apply
error: patch failed: include/linux/Kbuild:17
error: include/linux/Kbuild: patch does not apply
I also had to comment out these two due to new or dependent conflicts:
suppress-aout-library-support-if-config_binfmt_aout-checkpatch-fixes.patch
make-frame_pointer-default=y.patch
4. With the above 3 patches not applied, I got a couple of compile errors,
which I reported separately.
Cheers,
Erez.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/