Re: 2.6.14.5 to 2.6.15 patch

[Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>]

On 1/4/06, Nick Warne <nick@linicks.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 January 2006 17:18, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
> > > Is there one?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > What you do is you first revert the 2.6.14.5 patch so you are left
> > with a 2.6.14 kernel, then you apply the 2.6.15 patch.
> > For more info, please read Documentation/applying-patches.txt
> > (http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/lxr/source/Documentation/applying-patches.txt)
>
> I thought about doing it that way, but convinced myself it was too
> complicated.
>
> I see it is the right way (whatever that is).
>
> I went from 2.6.14 -> 2.6.14.2 -> .2-.3 -> .3-.4 -> .4-.5
>
If you did that you did it wrong. The -stable patches are *not*
incremental, they all apply to the base 2.6.x kernel.

What you should have done is :

2.6.14 -> 2.6.14.1
then before applying the 2.6.14.2 patch you should have reverted the
2.6.14.1 patch
2.6.14.1 -> 2.6.14
Then you go from 2.6.14 directly to 2.6.14.2
2.6.14 -> 2.6.14.2
etc...
2.6.14.2 -> 2.6.14
2.6.14 -> 2.6.14.3
2.6.14.3 -> 2.6.14
2.6.14 -> 2.6.14.4
2.6.14.4 -> 2.6.14
2.6.14 -> 2.6.14.5

If what you say you did above actually worked that's pure luck.

> I suppose I have to backtrack and revert all those patches in order?
>
No, just revert the 2.6.14.5 patch and you'll be left with a plain
2.6.14 to which you can then apply the 2.6.15 patch.

It's only ever "revert one, apply one".

I cover this in the "The 2.6.x.y kernels" section in
Documentation/applying-patches.txt , was that section not clear? If
not, then feel free to offer suggestions on how I can improve the
wording to make it more clear.

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html