On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Patrice W. wrote: > Let me correct some of my mistakes ;p > > You should read "2.4.21-pre4" instead of "2.4.12-pre4". > And the first patch you mention has to be patch on a 2.4.12-pre3 kernel. > > So... I downloaded a 2.4.20 kernel, applied the -pre3 patch, and the > first patch doesn't want to apply correctly : > > # patch -p0 < p1-104528462604039 > > patching file 2.4.21-pre3/drivers/usb/storage/datafab.c > patching file 2.4.21-pre3/drivers/usb/storage/freecom.c > Hunk #1 succeeded at 198 with fuzz 2. > Hunk #2 succeeded at 238 with fuzz 2. > Hunk #3 succeeded at 251 with fuzz 2. > Hunk #7 succeeded at 410 with fuzz 2. > Hunk #10 succeeded at 524 with fuzz 2. > Hunk #11 FAILED at 552. > 1 out of 11 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file > 2.4.21-pre3/drivers/usb/storage/freecom.c.rej > patching file 2.4.21-pre3/drivers/usb/storage/isd200.c > Hunk #2 succeeded at 574 with fuzz 1. > Hunk #3 FAILED at 603. > Hunk #4 succeeded at 617 with fuzz 1. > 1 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file > 2.4.21-pre3/drivers/usb/storage/isd200.c.rej > patching file 2.4.21-pre3/drivers/usb/storage/jumpshot.c > Hunk #1 succeeded at 132 with fuzz 2. > patching file 2.4.21-pre3/drivers/usb/storage/sddr09.c > Hunk #1 succeeded at 110 with fuzz 2. > patching file 2.4.21-pre3/drivers/usb/storage/sddr55.c > patching file 2.4.21-pre3/drivers/usb/storage/shuttle_usbat.c > Hunk #1 succeeded at 104 with fuzz 2. > patching file 2.4.21-pre3/drivers/usb/storage/transport.c > Hunk #2 FAILED at 820. > Hunk #4 succeeded at 886 with fuzz 1. > Hunk #5 succeeded at 989 with fuzz 2. > Hunk #6 succeeded at 999 with fuzz 1. > Hunk #9 succeeded at 1180 with fuzz 1. > Hunk #11 succeeded at 1202 with fuzz 1. > 1 out of 12 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file > 2.4.21-pre3/drivers/usb/storage/transport.c.rej > > > Is it me or what ? :) > > Patrice.
My guess would be that either you are running into a tabs <-> spaces problem or there are other updates applied out of order somewhere. Did you try to go into an editor and directly compare by eye the patch hunks that failed with your source files? They are all very small changes, so it shouldn't be hard to see what is going on. Besides, only 3 hunks failed; you could just type in the appropriate changes by hand. Almost all of the changes just involve replacing -ENOENT with -ECONNRESET -- although your third failure involves replacing it with -ENODEV. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
