Re: Linux 4.14.10

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 04:48:32PM +0100, Fran�ois Valenduc wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 29/12/17 � 18:42, Greg KH a �crit�:
> > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 06:38:15PM +0100, Fran�ois Valenduc wrote:
> >> Le 29/12/17 � 18:32, Greg KH a �crit�:
> >>> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 06:18:18PM +0100, Fran�ois Valenduc wrote:
> >>>> No solution found to the permissions on tools/objtool/sync-check.sh  ?
> >>> Is the permission not correct in the repo?  Is it not correct in the
> >>> patch I sent out in response to this?
> >>>
> >>>> git or patch is not smart enough for that ? It's obviously extremely
> >>>> easy to solve the problem, but I find that rather strange.
> >>> git and patch handle it just fine, quilt has issues, which I worked
> >>> around very easily.  Are you having problems with the git tree as-is?
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>>
> >>> greg k-h
> >> It seems I messed up with enigmail. So in case you couldn't read my
> >> reply, I send it again.
> >>
> >> I didn't see the posts of Toralf Forster before replying to your
> >> annoucement. But my problem is exactly the same. I extracted the patch
> >> from git (with git diff v4.14.9..v4.14.10). The permissions are also
> >> wrong if I download the patch from kernel.org. In both cases,
> >> sync-check.sh is not executable.
> > That's fine, but when you apply the patch, you need to keep the file
> > mode.  So be careful as to how you apply it.
> >
> > I just got told that there's a patch in Andrew's tree that fixes this
> > (it doesn't rely on the mode of the file.)  Hopefully it gets into
> > Linus's tree soon and then I can queue it up into the stable tree to
> > help people who don't only use git.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> 
> I tried like this:
> git diff v4.14.9..v4.14.10 | (cd /usr/src/linux-4.14 && patch -p1 )
> or xzcat .../patch-4.14.9-10.xz | patch -p1
> As I said, in both cases, sync-check.sh is not executable.
> 
> But if I do git archive --prefix=linux-4.14/  | (cd ../ && tar xvfp - ), sync-script.sh is executable.
> 
> Would there be something wrong with the patch command ?

Yes, patch is the problem here, it's not keeping the file permission,
sorry.

greg k-h