patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 misnamed?

patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 misnamed?

[K.R. Foley]

Ingo,

I believe that patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 is misnamed. It applies cleanly to
2.6.21 but seems to contain stuff that is already in 2.6.21.3.

-- 
   kr

Re: patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 misnamed?

[Ingo Molnar]

* K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:

> Ingo,
> 
> I believe that patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 is misnamed. It applies cleanly to 
> 2.6.21 but seems to contain stuff that is already in 2.6.21.3.

yes - it includes all of 2.6.21.3.

	Ingo

Re: patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 misnamed?

[K.R. Foley]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ingo,
>>
>> I believe that patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 is misnamed. It applies cleanly to 
>> 2.6.21 but seems to contain stuff that is already in 2.6.21.3.
> 
> yes - it includes all of 2.6.21.3.
> 
> 	Ingo
> 

So actually it is not really misnamed, it's just done a bit differently
than previous versions. Sorry.

-- 
   kr

Re: patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 misnamed?

[Ingo Molnar]

* K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Ingo,
> >>
> >> I believe that patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 is misnamed. It applies cleanly to 
> >> 2.6.21 but seems to contain stuff that is already in 2.6.21.3.
> > 
> > yes - it includes all of 2.6.21.3.
> > 
> > 	Ingo
> > 
> 
> So actually it is not really misnamed, it's just done a bit 
> differently than previous versions. Sorry.

yeah. Maybe we should make the 2.6.21.3 -rt patches relative to 2.6.21.3 
- but that would be one extra patching step for people who already have 
a 2.6.21 tree. But ... maybe that makes the most sense after all.

	Ingo

Re: patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 misnamed?

[K.R. Foley]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ingo,
>>>>
>>>> I believe that patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 is misnamed. It applies cleanly to 
>>>> 2.6.21 but seems to contain stuff that is already in 2.6.21.3.
>>> yes - it includes all of 2.6.21.3.
>>>
>>> 	Ingo
>>>
>> So actually it is not really misnamed, it's just done a bit 
>> differently than previous versions. Sorry.
> 
> yeah. Maybe we should make the 2.6.21.3 -rt patches relative to 2.6.21.3 
> - but that would be one extra patching step for people who already have 
> a 2.6.21 tree. But ... maybe that makes the most sense after all.
> 
> 	Ingo
> 

Well don't change any of this on my account. Whatever is easiest for
everyone else is fine with me. I was merely pointing it out to possibly
help someone else out rather than as a complaint.

-- 
   kr

Re: patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 misnamed?

[Matt Mackall]

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:01:09PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:
> 
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> Ingo,
> > >>
> > >> I believe that patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 is misnamed. It applies cleanly to 
> > >> 2.6.21 but seems to contain stuff that is already in 2.6.21.3.
> > > 
> > > yes - it includes all of 2.6.21.3.
> > > 
> > > 	Ingo
> > > 
> > 
> > So actually it is not really misnamed, it's just done a bit 
> > differently than previous versions. Sorry.
> 
> yeah. Maybe we should make the 2.6.21.3 -rt patches relative to 2.6.21.3 
> - but that would be one extra patching step for people who already have 
> a 2.6.21 tree. But ... maybe that makes the most sense after all.

Including 2.6.21.3 in your patch will break ketchup.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

Re: patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 misnamed?

[Joachim Deguara]

On Friday 01 June 2007 18:11:11 Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:01:09PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:
> > > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:
> > > >> Ingo,
> > > >>
> > > >> I believe that patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 is misnamed. It applies cleanly to
> > > >> 2.6.21 but seems to contain stuff that is already in 2.6.21.3.
> > > >
> > > > yes - it includes all of 2.6.21.3.
> > > >
> > > > 	Ingo
> > >
> > > So actually it is not really misnamed, it's just done a bit
> > > differently than previous versions. Sorry.
> >
> > yeah. Maybe we should make the 2.6.21.3 -rt patches relative to 2.6.21.3
> > - but that would be one extra patching step for people who already have
> > a 2.6.21 tree. But ... maybe that makes the most sense after all.
>
> Including 2.6.21.3 in your patch will break ketchup.

ketchup already breaks with the current rt9 patch. 

lapdog{rt}$ ketchup -n 2.6-rt
None -> 2.6.21.3-rt9
Unpacking linux-2.6.21.tar.bz2
Applying patch-2.6.21.3.bz2
Applying patch-2.6.21.3-rt9
lapdog{rt}$ head `which ketchup`
#!/usr/bin/python
#
# ketchup 0.9.8
# http://selenic.com/ketchup/wiki

As noted before rt9 is based one 2.6.21 so after ketchup brings the directory 
to 2.6.21.3 then applying rt9 fails.

I would appreciate it if you base the rtX patch on the kernel you list as a 
prefix of that patch.  It helps us that use ketchup and it just makes sense.

-Joachim

Re: patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 misnamed?

[Ingo Molnar]

* Joachim Deguara <joachim.deguara@amd.com> wrote:

> > Including 2.6.21.3 in your patch will break ketchup.
> 
> ketchup already breaks with the current rt9 patch.

we'll release -rt10 probably later today, which will fix this. (it will 
be named 2.6.21.3-rt10 and will be against 2.6.21.3)

	Ingo