first of all thanks for you quick reply...
> > 2. there are general kernel patches available for the 2.4.12 kernel
> > from ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4 as well as the xfs
> > patches available from
> > 10
> > -11.patch.bz2 to enable xfs support. do those patches
> conflict in any
> > way? is the order of patching important? are the sgi
> patches ment to be
> > installed against the plain 2.4.12 kernel or against the
> 2.4.12 kernel
> > including all the latest patches available from ftp.kernel.org?
> Hm... the patches we generate for 2.4.X are meant to be
> applied against a clean 2.4.X kernel.. .not sure what you
> mean about the other patches on kernel.org?
> i.e. if you get linux-2.4.12.tar.bz2 and unpack it, our
> linux-2.4.12-xfs-2001-10-11.patch.bz2 patch will apply
> cleanly against it.
well as far as i know if they find a bug in the kernel they release a
patchfile for it which can be found on the ftp.kernel.org host. for
example if you download the kernel from
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/patch-2.4.12.bz2 you can
download the latest patches for it from
(maybe i am completely wrong with this, if though please point me in the
right direction, but thats the way i always thought it works).
so we now have two patches to apply to the 2.4.12 kernel let's call the
first "original patch" and the second "sgi patch":
are the "sgi patches" meant to be installed against the plain 2.4.12
kernel or against the 2.4.12 kernel + "original patch"? is the order
important in which "original patch" and "sgi patch" are applied? do they
conflict in any way?
best regards and thanks in advice