From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268157AbUJSHZT (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:25:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268159AbUJSHZS (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:25:18 -0400 Received: from hydra.colinet.de ([194.231.113.36]:43667 "EHLO hydra.colinet.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268157AbUJSHZJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:25:09 -0400 Message-Id: <200410190723.i9J7NNuv027374@hydra.colinet.de> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:23:23 +0200 (CEST) From: "T. Weyergraf" Subject: patch-2.6.9 against 2.6.8.1 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org cc: kirk@colinet.de MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, I just build 2.6.9 using the patch-2.6.9, as always. Previously, I was using 2.6.8.1 and i expected patch-2.6.9 to work on the 2.6.8.1 tree. The patch-2.6.9 is somewhat "confused". Against 2.6.8.1, it fails to change the SUBLEVEL field: @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ VERSION = 2 PATCHLEVEL = 6 -SUBLEVEL = 8 +SUBLEVEL = 9 EXTRAVERSION = NAME=Zonked Quokka As one can see, the patch failes, since in 2.6.8.1, EXTRAVERSION is set to 1. Also, patch-2.6.9 contains the small fixes in fs/nfs/file.c, that were given in patch-2.6.8.1. Is this the desired behaviour ? Based on the past, i expected new patches to go against the latest stable kernel ( which is reported 2.6.8.1 by kernel.org ). Will - in the future - new patches skip the 4-digit kernelpatches ? I do not intent to start a flamewar over whether 4-digit kernelreleases are the right/wrong way to go. I am just looking for a consistent behaviour, which is at this point only given, if you expect new kernelreleases to go against the last 3-digit release. Is that so ? Regards, Thomas Weyergraf -- Thomas Weyergraf kirk@colinet.de Funny IA64 Opcode Dept: ( see arch/ia64/lib/memset.S ) "br.ret.spnt.few" - got back from getting beer, did not spend a lot.