From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263192AbTDGCQr (for ); Sun, 6 Apr 2003 22:16:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263194AbTDGCQr (for ); Sun, 6 Apr 2003 22:16:47 -0400 Received: from [12.47.58.55] ([12.47.58.55]:16087 "EHLO pao-ex01.pao.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263192AbTDGCQq (for ); Sun, 6 Apr 2003 22:16:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 18:28:15 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "Robert P. J. Day" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.66-bk12 causes "rpm" errors Message-Id: <20030406182815.65dd9304.akpm@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20030406183234.1e8abd7f.akpm@digeo.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2003 02:28:11.0906 (UTC) FILETIME=[55D06E20:01C2FCAD] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Robert P. J. Day" wrote: > > > The only change which comes to mind is the below one. Could you do a > > patch -R of this and retest? > > ... patch deleted ... > > that fixed it, but i only this second noticed the "-R" for reversing > the patch. i applied it normally against my 2.5.66-bk12 tree, and > it apparently applied cleanly. > > wouldn't that suggest that that patch wasn't in my tree in the first > place? i'm sure i'm up to bk12 at this point. > I am now very confused. That patch _is_ in 2.5.66-bk12. If a `patch -R' of that patch made bk12 work correctly then the patch was the source of the changed behaviour. Please start again ;) Test 2.5.66, then 2.5.66-bk12, then 2.5.66-bk12 with a `patch -R' of the patch which I sent in the earlier email. Thanks again.