Re: patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 misnamed?

["Joachim Deguara" <joachim.deguara@amd.com>]

On Friday 01 June 2007 18:11:11 Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:01:09PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:
> > > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * K.R. Foley <kr@cybsft.com> wrote:
> > > >> Ingo,
> > > >>
> > > >> I believe that patch-2.6.21.3-rt9 is misnamed. It applies cleanly to
> > > >> 2.6.21 but seems to contain stuff that is already in 2.6.21.3.
> > > >
> > > > yes - it includes all of 2.6.21.3.
> > > >
> > > > 	Ingo
> > >
> > > So actually it is not really misnamed, it's just done a bit
> > > differently than previous versions. Sorry.
> >
> > yeah. Maybe we should make the 2.6.21.3 -rt patches relative to 2.6.21.3
> > - but that would be one extra patching step for people who already have
> > a 2.6.21 tree. But ... maybe that makes the most sense after all.
>
> Including 2.6.21.3 in your patch will break ketchup.

ketchup already breaks with the current rt9 patch. 

lapdog{rt}$ ketchup -n 2.6-rt
None -> 2.6.21.3-rt9
Unpacking linux-2.6.21.tar.bz2
Applying patch-2.6.21.3.bz2
Applying patch-2.6.21.3-rt9
lapdog{rt}$ head `which ketchup`
#!/usr/bin/python
#
# ketchup 0.9.8
# http://selenic.com/ketchup/wiki

As noted before rt9 is based one 2.6.21 so after ketchup brings the directory 
to 2.6.21.3 then applying rt9 fails.

I would appreciate it if you base the rtX patch on the kernel you list as a 
prefix of that patch.  It helps us that use ketchup and it just makes sense.

-Joachim