xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Preempt + XFS

To: Steven Farrier <webmaster@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Preempt + XFS
From: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 26 Nov 2001 15:48:50 -0600
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200111262244.fAQMi9o27066@oss.sgi.com>
References: <200111262244.fAQMi9o27066@oss.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
That part of that section of the patch was offset slightly, but not so
much it had to use fuzz. I Hunking from what I've seen so far is just a
complaint of offset. If the entries already existed, you'd have got a
.rej file or if the entries weren't able to be found, you'd have also
got a .rej file. If you got no .rej files, then all is well.

On Mon, 2001-11-26 at 15:42, Steven Farrier wrote:
> I am attempting to use the 2.4.14-2 preempt patch and the xfs 1.0.2
> patch on 
> my kernel.
> 
> When I apply the xfs patch then the preempt patch this show up while
> applying 
> preempt
> 
> ----
> patching file kernel/fork.c
> patching file kernel/ksyms.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 448 (offset 14 lines).
> patching file kernel/sched.c
> patching file lib/dec_and_lock.c
> ----
> 
> When I apply the preempt patch then the xfs patch this shows up while 
> applying xfs
> 
> ----
> patching file mm/page_alloc.c
> patching file mm/slab.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 1568 (offset 2 lines).
> patching file mm/vmalloc.c
> patching file mm/vmscan.c
> ----
> 
> What is this Hunk #1 line mean?
> 
> Do it mean the patch failed to apply?
> 
> Steven
-- 
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA 
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: pgps9FnBtJxx0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>