RT patchset naming convention

RT patchset naming convention

[Patrick Doyle]

I would like to apply the RT patch set to my 4.9.52 kernel, but I am
confused by the naming convention of the patches available at
https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/4.9/.  I am also
somewhat distressed by the lack of a patch set for my 4.9.52 kernel.

Is there documentation as to the naming convention?  I see patches such as:

patch-4.9.61-rt51-rt52-rc1.patch
patch-4.9.65-rt56.patch
and
patches-4.9.61-rt61.tar.gz

Sadly, I don't see any patches for any 4.9.5? releases.  So is there
any advice as to which patch set I should apply to my kernel?

Thank you.

--wpd

Re: RT patchset naming convention

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:34:43 -0500, Patrick Doyle wrote:
>Is there documentation as to the naming convention?
>patches-4.9.61-rt61.tar.gz
         ^^^^^^ ^^^^rt patch version
         ^^^^^^kernel version

https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/linux-4.9.tar.gz
+
https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/patch-4.9.61.gz
or
https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/linux-4.9.61.tar.gz

Rt patches that fit to kernel 4.9.61 are all patches
                              4.9.61-rt*

See also https://cdn.kernel.org/category/releases.html .

>Sadly, I don't see any patches for any 4.9.5? releases.  So is there
>any advice as to which patch set I should apply to my kernel?

Is there a good reason that has to be exactly 4.9.5?

Why don't you follow the 4.9 LTS as close a s possible by upgrading to
a kernel version close to an available rt patch.

4.9.73 is from 2017-12-29, see https://cdn.kernel.org/ ,
IOW I would go with kernel 4.9.68 and patch-4.9.68-rt60

If you really want 4.9.5 you could try to do it as Fernando from CCRMA
does:

https://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2017-December/109022.html

That way a patch might apply automatically with an offset or you
perhaps need to fix it manually.

Re: RT patchset naming convention

[Ralf Mardorf]

4.9.61-rt61
4.9.68-rt60

It's somewhat unusual that the kernel version does increases and the rt
patch version decreases, usually it's vice versa ;).

4.14.6-rt7
4.14.8-rt9

Re: RT patchset naming convention

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 06:18:48 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>4.9.61-rt61
>4.9.68-rt60
>
>It's somewhat unusual that the kernel version does increases and the rt
>patch version decreases, usually it's vice versa ;).
>
>4.14.6-rt7
>4.14.8-rt9

:D not vice versa, both versions increase ;).

Re: RT patchset naming convention

[Arve Barsnes]

On 30 December 2017 at 05:18, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>
> 4.9.61-rt61
> 4.9.68-rt60
>
> It's somewhat unusual that the kernel version does increases and the rt
> patch version decreases, usually it's vice versa ;).

That's probably a spelling error in some way, 4.9.61 had the -rt51
patch set, and no -rt61 patch set has been announced as far as I could
find. Meaning -rt60 is the latest one :)

Re: RT patchset naming convention

[Patrick Doyle]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Arve Barsnes <arve.barsnes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 December 2017 at 05:18, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>>
>> 4.9.61-rt61
>> 4.9.68-rt60
>>
>> It's somewhat unusual that the kernel version does increases and the rt
>> patch version decreases, usually it's vice versa ;).
>
> That's probably a spelling error in some way, 4.9.61 had the -rt51
> patch set, and no -rt61 patch set has been announced as far as I could
> find. Meaning -rt60 is the latest one :)

Sorry for the confusion... I know better than to post a question when
I'm tired and grumpy... but unfortunately, discretion is one of the
virtues I lose when I'm tired and grumpy :-)

I was looking at the patches available at
https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/4.9/

I was confused by names such as:
patch-4.9.61-rt51-rt52-rc1.patch.gz
patch-4.9.65-rt56.patch.gz
and
patches-4.9.61-rt61.tar.gz
(and, yes indeed, there are both patches-4.9.61-rt61.tar.gz and
patches-4.9.68-rt60.tar.gz available there)

I should have just stopped and looked more carefully before I posted
my question... in hindsight, it is clear to me that the
patch-*A-B.patch.gz file is a patchset to go from A to B, whereas the
patches-X.gz file is the entire set of patches for release X.

So, sorry for the spam.

But I do remain curious as to the best approach to take to apply
patches to my vendor supplies 4.9.51 kernel.  There appear to be no
patches available for any of the 4.9.5x kernels (the "older"
subdirectory contains patches for kernel 4.9.47 and 4.9.61, but
nothing for kernel revisions between those two).

What is the best approach to take here?
I could go down a path of working with the (ARM chip) vendor to bump
up to an rt-linux supported kernel rev.
I could just apply the 4.9.61 patchset to my 4.9.51 kernel, see that
they apply, and run from there.

(For the moment, I'm starting with plan "b", and will contact my
vendor about plan "a").

--wpd

Re: RT patchset naming convention

[Ralf Mardorf]

This one didn't came through:

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 06:07:28 +0100
From: Ralf
To: linux-rt-users
Subject: Re: RT patchset naming convention


On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:34:43 -0500, Patrick Doyle wrote:
>Is there documentation as to the naming convention?
>patches-4.9.61-rt61.tar.gz  
         ^^^^^^ ^^^^rt patch version
         ^^^^^^kernel version

https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/linux-4.9.tar.gz
+
https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/patch-4.9.61.gz
or
https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/linux-4.9.61.tar.gz

Rt patches that fit to kernel 4.9.61 are all patches
                              4.9.61-rt*

See also https://cdn.kernel.org/category/releases.html .

>Sadly, I don't see any patches for any 4.9.5? releases.  So is there
>any advice as to which patch set I should apply to my kernel?  

Is there a good reason that has to be exactly 4.9.5?

Why don't you follow the 4.9 LTS as close a s possible by upgrading to
a kernel version close to an available rt patch.

4.9.73 is from 2017-12-29, see https://cdn.kernel.org/ ,
IOW I would go with kernel 4.9.68 and patch-4.9.68-rt60

If you really want 4.9.5 you could try to do it as Fernando from CCRMA
does:

https://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2017-December/109022.html

That way a patch might apply automatically with an offset or you
perhaps need to fix it manually.