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.
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:04:35 -0500 Erez Zadok <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
That would work.
It's usually very obvious, because the first patch is `origin.patch'
(Linus's latest tree against his most-recent-release) and there's no way in
which that patch will apply to the wrong tree.
It just happened that the particular series you grabbed had an empty
origin.patch.
> 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)?
umm, OK, I'll put a file in there called stamp-yyyy-mm-dd-hh-mm
> 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
I warned you ;)
> 4. With the above 3 patches not applied, I got a couple of compile errors,
> which I reported separately.
Yup, thanks, I refreshed it.