Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*2\.4\.6\s+patch\s+does\s+not\s+apply\s+cleanly\s+to\s+2\.4\.6\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*2\.4\.6\s+patch\s+does\s+not\s+apply\s+cleanly\s+to\s+2\.4\.6\s*$/: 30 ]

Total 30 documents matching your query.

1. 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:21:13 +0200 (CEST); The 2.4.6 patch didn't apply cleanly to a pure kernel source .. ./fs/buffer.c.rej ./fs/namei.c.rej ./mm/vmscan.c.rej And in any case the patch I got hold of linux-2.4.6-xfs-cvs-06212001.patch contain; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00354.html (9,453 bytes)
2. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:50:09 +0200; At 16:21 10-7-2001 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote: The 2.4.6 patch didn't apply cleanly to a pure kernel source .. ./fs/buffer.c.rej ./fs/namei.c.rej ./mm/vmscan.c.rej And in any case the patch I got h; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00357.html (9,664 bytes)
3. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: sandeen@xxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:52:10 -0500; Yep, the xfs-cvs patches are designed to seed a whole CVS tree... and if that patch above was generated on 6/21, it was probably against a 2.4.6-preX kernel. Did you try ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xf; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00358.html (8,611 bytes)
4. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:32:39 +0200 (CEST); Thanks. Where can I get hold of a clean patch for 2.4.6? I believe I saw some traffic on that recently, but didn't save the messages. The official site has: Current directory is /projects/xfs/downloa; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00361.html (12,361 bytes)
5. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: sandeen@xxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:56:59 -0500; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ here ^ 2.4.2/2.4.3 is what XFS 1.0 was released against, so there is a lot more detailed (and organized) information on those kernels. But I agree, things are a b; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00362.html (9,126 bytes)
6. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 11:10:59 -0500; Just to add to Eric's comments ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Try this one, it applies cleanly and builds without problem for me, including the new aic driver and xfs as a module. linux-2.4.x-xfs-cvs-<date>.patch.gz C; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00364.html (11,776 bytes)
7. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:14:36 +0200 (CEST); Yo! That's the one. Thanks! For some reason the german mirror (which I chose originally) has more patches, and includes cvs and non-cvs patches among them, and somehow I didn't notice the alternative; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00366.html (10,096 bytes)
8. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:22:45 +0200 (CEST); OK, thanks! Turns out I couldn't see the -cvs- part of the name because my browser has chosen blue links on a black background. The -cvs- bit reverses the alphabetic and numerical ordering, so that l; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00369.html (9,007 bytes)
9. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:54:11 +0200; Well, I recall something about that too in recent list traffic, but didn't pay too much attention at the time. I don't mind whether I use the new or old aic7xxx driver, personally. Crap, I missed the; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00383.html (9,763 bytes)
10. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:45:48 +0200 (MET DST); Ditto. I didn't apply any further aic patch yet. My first impression is that there is some instability. I'm running on a dell smp machine, and with 2.4.3 + xfs I was getting about 1 hang a week (I kn; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00388.html (11,114 bytes)
11. 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:21:13 +0200 (CEST); The 2.4.6 patch didn't apply cleanly to a pure kernel source .. ./fs/buffer.c.rej ./fs/namei.c.rej ./mm/vmscan.c.rej And in any case the patch I got hold of linux-2.4.6-xfs-cvs-06212001.patch contain; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01645.html (9,453 bytes)
12. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:50:09 +0200; At 16:21 10-7-2001 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote: The 2.4.6 patch didn't apply cleanly to a pure kernel source .. ./fs/buffer.c.rej ./fs/namei.c.rej ./mm/vmscan.c.rej And in any case the patch I got h; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01648.html (9,664 bytes)
13. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:52:10 -0500; Yep, the xfs-cvs patches are designed to seed a whole CVS tree... and if that patch above was generated on 6/21, it was probably against a 2.4.6-preX kernel. Did you try ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xf; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01649.html (8,611 bytes)
14. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:32:39 +0200 (CEST); Thanks. Where can I get hold of a clean patch for 2.4.6? I believe I saw some traffic on that recently, but didn't save the messages. The official site has: Current directory is /projects/xfs/downloa; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01652.html (12,361 bytes)
15. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:56:59 -0500; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ here ^ 2.4.2/2.4.3 is what XFS 1.0 was released against, so there is a lot more detailed (and organized) information on those kernels. But I agree, things are a b; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01653.html (9,126 bytes)
16. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 11:10:59 -0500; Just to add to Eric's comments ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Try this one, it applies cleanly and builds without problem for me, including the new aic driver and xfs as a module. linux-2.4.x-xfs-cvs-<date>.patch.gz C; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01655.html (11,776 bytes)
17. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:14:36 +0200 (CEST); Yo! That's the one. Thanks! For some reason the german mirror (which I chose originally) has more patches, and includes cvs and non-cvs patches among them, and somehow I didn't notice the alternative; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01657.html (10,096 bytes)
18. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:22:45 +0200 (CEST); OK, thanks! Turns out I couldn't see the -cvs- part of the name because my browser has chosen blue links on a black background. The -cvs- bit reverses the alphabetic and numerical ordering, so that l; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01660.html (9,007 bytes)
19. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:54:11 +0200; Well, I recall something about that too in recent list traffic, but didn't pay too much attention at the time. I don't mind whether I use the new or old aic7xxx driver, personally. Crap, I missed the; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01674.html (9,763 bytes)
20. Re: 2.4.6 patch does not apply cleanly to 2.4.6 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:45:48 +0200 (MET DST); Ditto. I didn't apply any further aic patch yet. My first impression is that there is some instability. I'm running on a dell smp machine, and with 2.4.3 + xfs I was getting about 1 hang a week (I kn; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01679.html (11,114 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]