On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Simon<turner25@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> After re-reading kernel's README and >> Documentation/applying-patches.txt, I think you better do this >> sequence: >> 1. apply patch 2.6.29.6 on top of 2.6.29 >> 2. apply unionfs patch... expect to see some rejects... then try to >> fix them. Well, if you're lucky, it's possible that unionfs patch >> applies smoothly on 2.6.29.6 >> >> Others might have better idea... Ok, i read a bit, i still want to read a bit more before i start anything about this 'methodology'... I found interdiff from the patchutils, this tool can make an incremental patch from 2 patches as i understand it. http://freshmeat.net/projects/patchutils/ I could then patch source 2.6.29 with 2.6.29.4. This will give a top shape patch output. Then patch this with unionfs for 2.6.29.4, which i tried already and gives a top shape result too. Then i would create an 'inter' patch from 2.6.29.4 to 2.6.29.6. This one will probably not be top shape, but will give few warnings (in fact it might give none, unionfs is very simple, adds a few files and modifies very little of the existing ones). This way of working could easily be automated. Also, in case my patching needs become more complex, i could easily make interpatches of every revisions and try to apply patches in different order (maybe applying unionfs on 2.6.29.6 straight will work better, or maybe best result would be to apply it on 2.6.29.5...). If you guys have any more suggestions or ideas, feel free to join in! Simon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
