hi,
thanks john- you really cleared my blues with that example of yours.
although i am able to patch 2.2.15 with 2.2.13ac3 now, there seems to
be a problem with the ide-cd.c and ac3- apparently they conflict with
each other and only one person bothered to create a patch for that,
which is here:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9911.2/0221.html
however the patch seems to be defected. i may have to work on it to
get it working.
oh the joys and frustrations of "patching up"!
thanks again,
regards,
nirmal
On 4/25/07, John Anthony Kazos Jr. <jakj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> i am using the 2.2.13 kernel primarily because i require the 2.2.13ac3
> patch (by Alan Cox).
>
> After applying the 2.2.13ac3 patch i wish to upgrade to the 2.2.14
> kernel with the 2.2.14 patch.
>
> while applying the 2.2.14 patch i get several :
>
> "Reverse patch detected . Assume -R" prompts. i proceed by denying the
> assume -r . (hitting n)
>
> yet i cannot compile the kernel and i receive several errors.
>
> what am i doing wrong here??
Without looking at the patches involved, I'd have to assume that the
2.2.13ac3 patch changes things that the 2.2.13-14 patch also changes,
possibly in incompatible ways. You'll most likely have to apply the ac3
patch manually, -after- you have applied the 13-14 patch, and hope the
changes to .14 don't break ac3. If they do, you're stuck with .13.
Sometimes it'll detect a reverse patch when you apply two patches that
both include the same addition. Like this:
.13:
funcA();
ac3.patch:
-funcA();
+funcB();
.14.patch:
-funcA();
+funcB();
So it figures that you really meant to switch back to funcA, since a
reversed patch is when the original and modified file arguments are
swapped. If this is the case, you should be okay, and hopefully it just
means that parts of the ac3 changes got put into .14.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
"unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
