Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Yet\s+another\s+patch\s+question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Yet\s+another\s+patch\s+question\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Yet another patch question (score: 1): Author: David Chambers <davidc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:16:16 -0800; While we are(were!) on the subject of patches, has anyone successfully applied the XFS patch to a rmap12a patched kernel? (or vice versa) Is this even a sane thing to try (okay, no)? I tried yesterda; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00005.html (6,716 bytes)
2. Re: Yet another patch question (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 01 Feb 2002 08:59:24 -0600; The tricky part here is that our tree also has kdb in it, if you subtract out kdb then it gets a lot easier in general to apply xfs to other random kernels. Although when it comes to vm changes we ha; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00006.html (7,991 bytes)
3. Re: Yet another patch question (score: 1): Author: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 11:05:17 +1100; kdb v2.1 (in current xfs tree) should not be a problem with vm changes, I removed the kdb dependency on the vm source code. Module kdb/kdbm_vm.c will be a problem for rmap, so patch kdb/modules/Makef; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00029.html (7,861 bytes)
4. xfs (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:16:16 -0800; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00579.html (6,716 bytes)
5. ion (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 01 Feb 2002 08:59:24 -0600; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00580.html (7,991 bytes)
6. ap? (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 11:05:17 +1100; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00603.html (7,861 bytes)
7. Yet another patch question (score: 1): Author: David Chambers <davidc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:16:16 -0800; While we are(were!) on the subject of patches, has anyone successfully applied the XFS patch to a rmap12a patched kernel? (or vice versa) Is this even a sane thing to try (okay, no)? I tried yesterda; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01153.html (6,716 bytes)
8. Re: Yet another patch question (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 01 Feb 2002 08:59:24 -0600; The tricky part here is that our tree also has kdb in it, if you subtract out kdb then it gets a lot easier in general to apply xfs to other random kernels. Although when it comes to vm changes we ha; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01154.html (8,067 bytes)
9. Re: Yet another patch question (score: 1): Author: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 11:05:17 +1100; kdb v2.1 (in current xfs tree) should not be a problem with vm changes, I removed the kdb dependency on the vm source code. Module kdb/kdbm_vm.c will be a problem for rmap, so patch kdb/modules/Makef; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01177.html (7,894 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]