linux ac20 patch got error:

linux ac20 patch got error:

[Thomas Lau]

please check it, I got error when I patch , Thanks

Re: linux ac20 patch got error:

[Adam Schrotenboer]

A rather incomprehensible message, so let's flesh this out a bit.

Basically the problem occurs when patching linux/fs/reiserfs/namei.c It 
can't find it, presumably due to an error in 2.4.1, where it appears to 
me that reiserfs/ is located off of linux/ not linux/fs/. Simple to fix, 
I guess, though this would appear to mean that Linus made a mistake w/ 
2.4.1 (plz correct me if I'm wrong), though it could also be said that 
this means that Alan diff'd the wrong tree (basically a fixed tree in re 
reiserfs/)

/me needs to stop using latin while writing on lk. Maybe too much 
caffeine (just received caffeine candy sampler from ThinkGeek)

Re: linux ac20 patch got error:

[Mike Galbraith]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:

> A rather incomprehensible message, so let's flesh this out a bit.
>
> Basically the problem occurs when patching linux/fs/reiserfs/namei.c It
> can't find it, presumably due to an error in 2.4.1, where it appears to
> me that reiserfs/ is located off of linux/ not linux/fs/. Simple to fix,
> I guess, though this would appear to mean that Linus made a mistake w/
> 2.4.1 (plz correct me if I'm wrong), though it could also be said that
> this means that Alan diff'd the wrong tree (basically a fixed tree in re
> reiserfs/)

A third possibility: an elf/gremlin munged your tree for grins ;-)

ac20 went in clean here.

	-Mike

Re: linux ac20 patch got error:

[Adam Schrotenboer]

Mike Galbraith wrote:

 > On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
 >
 >> A rather incomprehensible message, so let's flesh this out a bit.
 >>
 >> Basically the problem occurs when patching linux/fs/reiserfs/namei.c It
 >> can't find it, presumably due to an error in 2.4.1, where it appears to
 >> me that reiserfs/ is located off of linux/ not linux/fs/. Simple to fix,
 >> I guess, though this would appear to mean that Linus made a mistake w/
 >> 2.4.1 (plz correct me if I'm wrong), though it could also be said that
 >> this means that Alan diff'd the wrong tree (basically a fixed tree in re
 >> reiserfs/)
 >
 >
 > A third possibility: an elf/gremlin munged your tree for grins ;-)

maybe I coffed. 8-)

 >
 > ac20 went in clean here.
 >
 > 	-Mike

Granted that this is possible, yet how likely is it that two people
would come up with the same problem, when they don't even know each
other. 2nd, this was a fresh tree, i.e. 2.4.0 from tar.bz2, patch to
2.4.1, then patch to 2.4.1-ac20, therefore there likely must be
something else. Maybe a similarly corrupted (shouldn't be possible w/
bz2, let alone gz) 2.4.1 patch, or some such. Still, given that it was a
d/l from zeus.kernel.org, it should be ok (short of somebody hacking the
server. I rarely check the sigs)

Re: linux ac20 patch got error:

[Mike Galbraith]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:

> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>  > On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
>  >
>  >> A rather incomprehensible message, so let's flesh this out a bit.
>  >>
>  >> Basically the problem occurs when patching linux/fs/reiserfs/namei.c It
>  >> can't find it, presumably due to an error in 2.4.1, where it appears to
>  >> me that reiserfs/ is located off of linux/ not linux/fs/. Simple to fix,
>  >> I guess, though this would appear to mean that Linus made a mistake w/
>  >> 2.4.1 (plz correct me if I'm wrong), though it could also be said that
>  >> this means that Alan diff'd the wrong tree (basically a fixed tree in re
>  >> reiserfs/)
>  >
>  >
>  > A third possibility: an elf/gremlin munged your tree for grins ;-)
>
> maybe I coffed. 8-)
>
>  >
>  > ac20 went in clean here.
>  >
>  > 	-Mike
>
> Granted that this is possible, yet how likely is it that two people
> would come up with the same problem, when they don't even know each
> other. 2nd, this was a fresh tree, i.e. 2.4.0 from tar.bz2, patch to
> 2.4.1, then patch to 2.4.1-ac20, therefore there likely must be
> something else. Maybe a similarly corrupted (shouldn't be possible w/
> bz2, let alone gz) 2.4.1 patch, or some such. Still, given that it was a
> d/l from zeus.kernel.org, it should be ok (short of somebody hacking the
> server. I rarely check the sigs)

Who shot John doesn't matter much.  Bottom line is that your tree was
corrupt.. and now it's likely clean as a whistle ;-)

	-Mike