Patches version problem

Patches version problem

[Luca Capello]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

I download again the latest patches for 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 and I've a funny (and
IMHO *very-problematic*) situation:
=====
gismo:/usr/src# ls -l kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.*
- -rw-r--r--    1 luca     luca         9470 Mar  1 08:15
kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.3.diff.bz2
- -rw-r--r--    1 luca     luca        12582 Mar  2 12:24
kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.4.diff.bz2
gismo:/usr/src#

gismo:/usr/src# ls -l /home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.*
- -rw-------    1 luca     luca        15554 Mar  6 13:56
/home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.3.diff.bz2
- -rw-r--r--    1 luca     luca        12569 Mar  6 13:56
/home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.4.diff.bz2
gismo:/usr/src#
=====

So, there're 2 different patches with the same name and this can cause
inconsistency: if you release a patch at 20040305 (the last nigth), why do you
call it 'acpi-20040220'??? I mean, I use 'acpi-20040220' since 20040301 (as from
the 'ls -l') and now I'll use 'acpi-20040220' from 20040305: they are different,
as the size suggests, but from a 'cat /proc/acpi/info' I don't have any way to
know which one I'm using (the 20040301 or 20040305).

Again, why the same name?

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFASc5OVAp7Xm10JmkRAiqqAJ4twhxRmJlrLVubOR/NeYmnYx+5agCfQ+te
RbZlgJiAeXpcddzwTFluz2I=
=s3uL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click

Re: Patches version problem

[Len Brown]

Luca,
The 20040220 in the patch version is the ACPICA version number -- the
version of the core AML interpreter, and it is updated only upon
upstream updates to the interpreter.

Sometimes the ACPI patch will update this number when it pulls a new
version of the interpreter, but more often it will not.

yes, this can be confusing.  We used to update this number always, but
that turned out to be even more confusing as people wouldn't know what
interpreter version they were running.  Still more confusing is the fact
that in the latest kernel, the patch will periodically become out of
date and no longer apply when the baseline kernel pulls the patch from
us.  This is unavoidable -- unless you run the patch against a frozen
release -- eg. patch 2.6.3 instead of patching 2.6.4.

If you're really intent on getting the latest w/o any confusion, then
use bk rather than plain patches.  details here:
http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/patches/README.ACPI

cheers,
-Len




On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 08:12, Luca Capello wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I download again the latest patches for 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 and I've a funny (and
> IMHO *very-problematic*) situation:
> =====
> gismo:/usr/src# ls -l kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.*
> - -rw-r--r--    1 luca     luca         9470 Mar  1 08:15
> kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.3.diff.bz2
> - -rw-r--r--    1 luca     luca        12582 Mar  2 12:24
> kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.4.diff.bz2
> gismo:/usr/src#
> 
> gismo:/usr/src# ls -l /home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.*
> - -rw-------    1 luca     luca        15554 Mar  6 13:56
> /home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.3.diff.bz2
> - -rw-r--r--    1 luca     luca        12569 Mar  6 13:56
> /home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.4.diff.bz2
> gismo:/usr/src#
> =====
> 
> So, there're 2 different patches with the same name and this can cause
> inconsistency: if you release a patch at 20040305 (the last nigth), why do you
> call it 'acpi-20040220'??? I mean, I use 'acpi-20040220' since 20040301 (as from
> the 'ls -l') and now I'll use 'acpi-20040220' from 20040305: they are different,
> as the size suggests, but from a 'cat /proc/acpi/info' I don't have any way to
> know which one I'm using (the 20040301 or 20040305).
> 
> Again, why the same name?
> 
> Thx, bye,
> Gismo / Luca
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFASc5OVAp7Xm10JmkRAiqqAJ4twhxRmJlrLVubOR/NeYmnYx+5agCfQ+te
> RbZlgJiAeXpcddzwTFluz2I=
> =s3uL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
> Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
> GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
> administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Acpi-devel mailing list
> Acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-devel



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click

Re: Patches version problem

[Luca Capello]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello Len,

on 03/08/04 05:01, Len Brown wrote:
> Luca,
> The 20040220 in the patch version is the ACPICA version number -- the
> version of the core AML interpreter, and it is updated only upon
> upstream updates to the interpreter.
>
> Sometimes the ACPI patch will update this number when it pulls a new
> version of the interpreter, but more often it will not.
thank you for the clear explanation, now I understood.

> If you're really intent on getting the latest w/o any confusion, then
> use bk rather than plain patches.  details here:
> http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/patches/README.ACPI
No, until now and I hope for a long time I continue to use the latest ACPI
release, so I'll catch a new ACPI patch only when you post a message like
'[BKPATCH] ACPI for 2.6' on this list ;-)

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFATZjEVAp7Xm10JmkRAr0/AJ0f1J0+VRMXim5Fea2QKx7RU62sdQCeKmTN
vmfetcQHdVt6GccszUqt7R4=
=BTu5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click