patch conflicts (MMOTM "10-Nov-2007 22:46")

patch conflicts (MMOTM "10-Nov-2007 22:46")

[Erez Zadok]

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.

Re: patch conflicts (MMOTM "10-Nov-2007 22:46")

[Andrew Morton]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:04:35 -0500 Erez Zadok <ezk@cs.sunysb.edu> 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.