On Wednesday 09 March 2005 03:39, Greg KH wrote:
>diff -Nru a/Makefile b/Makefile
>--- a/Makefile 2005-03-09 00:13:29 -08:00
>+++ b/Makefile 2005-03-09 00:13:29 -08:00
>@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> VERSION = 2
> PATCHLEVEL = 6
> SUBLEVEL = 11
>-EXTRAVERSION = .1
>+EXTRAVERSION = .2
> NAME=Woozy Numbat
>
> #
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 03:39, Greg KH wrote:
diff -Nru a/Makefile b/Makefile
--- a/Makefile 2005-03-09 00:13:29 -08:00
+++ b/Makefile 2005-03-09 00:13:29 -08:00
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 11
-EXTRAVERSION = .1
+EXTRAVERSION = .2
NAME=Woozy Numbat
#
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Matt Mackall wrote:
In your world, do you want to do:
cp -rl linux-2.6.11 linux-2.6.11.5
cd linux-2.6.11.5
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.1.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.2.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.3.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Matt Mackall wrote:
In your world, do you want to do:
cp -rl linux-2.6.11 linux-2.6.11.5
cd linux-2.6.11.5
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.1.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.2.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.3.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat
Matt Mackall wrote:
In your world, do you want to do:
cp -rl linux-2.6.11 linux-2.6.11.5
cd linux-2.6.11.5
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.1.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.2.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.3.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.4.bz2 | patch -p1
Matt Mackall wrote:
In your world, do you want to do:
cp -rl linux-2.6.11 linux-2.6.11.5
cd linux-2.6.11.5
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.1.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.2.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.3.bz2 | patch -p1
bzcat ../Patches/patch-2.6.11.4.bz2 | patch -p1
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:10:19PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I didn't like the initial decision to go incremental, and I even less like
> changing now, but it's the right thing to do. It's not like we have a big
> investment in scripts or anything, and you're doing the work.
And it's already
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:19:28AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Matt Mackall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Or do you want to do it the same way you do for every other branch? I
> > > don't want to special-case it in my code and I don't think users want
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:19:28AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
* Matt Mackall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Or do you want to do it the same way you do for every other branch? I
don't want to special-case it in my code and I don't think users want
to
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:10:19PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I didn't like the initial decision to go incremental, and I even less like
changing now, but it's the right thing to do. It's not like we have a big
investment in scripts or anything, and you're doing the work.
And it's already
On Friday 11 March 2005 14:23, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Somewhat Greg, it caught me out. OTOH, once we know that .2 needs
>> .1, we'll be ok. And it does give a quick method for us frogs to
>> define if one of them is a regression. The only thing that should
>> break if we
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:19:28AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Matt Mackall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Or do you want to do it the same way you do for every other branch? I
> > don't want to special-case it in my code and I don't think users want
> > to special-case it in their brains. Have
* Krzysztof Halasa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * Krzysztof Halasa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> Another patch for 2.6.11.x: already in main tree, fixes kernel panic
> >> on receive with WAN cards based on Hitachi SCA/SCA-II: N2, C101,
> >>
Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Krzysztof Halasa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Another patch for 2.6.11.x: already in main tree, fixes kernel panic
>> on receive with WAN cards based on Hitachi SCA/SCA-II: N2, C101,
>> PCI200SYN.
>> Also a documentation change fixing user-panic
* Matt Mackall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Or do you want to do it the same way you do for every other branch? I
> don't want to special-case it in my code and I don't think users want
> to special-case it in their brains. Have separate interdiffs on the
> side, please, and then people can
Chris Wright wrote:
* Krzysztof Halasa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Another patch for 2.6.11.x: already in main tree, fixes kernel panic
on receive with WAN cards based on Hitachi SCA/SCA-II: N2, C101,
PCI200SYN.
Also a documentation change fixing user-panic can-t-find-required-software
failure
Gene Heskett wrote:
Somewhat Greg, it caught me out. OTOH, once we know that .2 needs .1,
we'll be ok. And it does give a quick method for us frogs to define
if one of them is a regression. The only thing that should break if
we leave one out of the squence is the EXTRAVERSION path in the
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:11:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> >>On St 09-03-05 09:52:46, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
> >>
> >>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >>>Hash: SHA1
> >>>
> >>>On Wed, 9
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:11:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
On St 09-03-05 09:52:46, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this
* Krzysztof Halasa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Another patch for 2.6.11.x: already in main tree, fixes kernel panic
> on receive with WAN cards based on Hitachi SCA/SCA-II: N2, C101,
> PCI200SYN.
> Also a documentation change fixing user-panic can-t-find-required-software
> failure (just the same
Hi,
Another patch for 2.6.11.x: already in main tree, fixes kernel panic
on receive with WAN cards based on Hitachi SCA/SCA-II: N2, C101,
PCI200SYN.
Also a documentation change fixing user-panic can-t-find-required-software
failure (just the same patch as in mainline) :-)
Please apply, thanks.
Hi,
Another patch for 2.6.11.x: already in main tree, fixes kernel panic
on receive with WAN cards based on Hitachi SCA/SCA-II: N2, C101,
PCI200SYN.
Also a documentation change fixing user-panic can-t-find-required-software
failure (just the same patch as in mainline) :-)
Please apply, thanks.
* Krzysztof Halasa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Another patch for 2.6.11.x: already in main tree, fixes kernel panic
on receive with WAN cards based on Hitachi SCA/SCA-II: N2, C101,
PCI200SYN.
Also a documentation change fixing user-panic can-t-find-required-software
failure (just the same
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:11:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
On St 09-03-05 09:52:46, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:11:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
On St 09-03-05 09:52:46, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
Chris Wright wrote:
* Krzysztof Halasa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Another patch for 2.6.11.x: already in main tree, fixes kernel panic
on receive with WAN cards based on Hitachi SCA/SCA-II: N2, C101,
PCI200SYN.
Also a documentation change fixing user-panic can-t-find-required-software
failure
Gene Heskett wrote:
Somewhat Greg, it caught me out. OTOH, once we know that .2 needs .1,
we'll be ok. And it does give a quick method for us frogs to define
if one of them is a regression. The only thing that should break if
we leave one out of the squence is the EXTRAVERSION path in the
* Matt Mackall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Or do you want to do it the same way you do for every other branch? I
don't want to special-case it in my code and I don't think users want
to special-case it in their brains. Have separate interdiffs on the
side, please, and then people can choose,
Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Krzysztof Halasa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Another patch for 2.6.11.x: already in main tree, fixes kernel panic
on receive with WAN cards based on Hitachi SCA/SCA-II: N2, C101,
PCI200SYN.
Also a documentation change fixing user-panic
* Krzysztof Halasa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Krzysztof Halasa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Another patch for 2.6.11.x: already in main tree, fixes kernel panic
on receive with WAN cards based on Hitachi SCA/SCA-II: N2, C101,
PCI200SYN.
Also a
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:19:28AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
* Matt Mackall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Or do you want to do it the same way you do for every other branch? I
don't want to special-case it in my code and I don't think users want
to special-case it in their brains. Have
On Friday 11 March 2005 14:23, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Somewhat Greg, it caught me out. OTOH, once we know that .2 needs
.1, we'll be ok. And it does give a quick method for us frogs to
define if one of them is a regression. The only thing that should
break if we leave one
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 18:11, Greg KH wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 01:06:31PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> > And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released
>> > 2.6.11.2. It contains one patch, which is already in
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 18:11, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 01:06:31PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released
2.6.11.2. It contains one patch, which is already in the -bk
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:57:16PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Imagine we want to go from 2.6.11.3 to 2.6.12
The easiest way would be to keep a local fresh copy of 2.6.11 before
applying 2.6.11.3 anyway. That would solve a) and b) even more easily.
And yes, I find a) more logical. This is the
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 01:06:31PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2.
> > It contains one patch, which is already in the -bk tree, and came from
> > the security team
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:46:29AM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think you need both x.y.z=>x.y.z.N and x.y.z.N-1=>x.y.z.N patches. My
> > systems which are following the -stable will just need the most recent,
> > but doing x.y.z-1=>x.y.z.N gets
Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you need both x.y.z=>x.y.z.N and x.y.z.N-1=>x.y.z.N patches. My
> systems which are following the -stable will just need the most recent,
> but doing x.y.z-1=>x.y.z.N gets really ugly for higher values of N.
bzcat ../patch-2.6.nn.[0-9].*|patch
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:11:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On St 09-03-05 09:52:46, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > >which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
>
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:11:57PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 01:06:31PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2.
> > > It contains one patch, which is
Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> >>>which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
> >>>that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
> >>>way in
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2.
It contains one patch, which is already in the -bk tree, and came from
the security team (hence the lack of the longer review cycle).
It's available
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2.
> It contains one patch, which is already in the -bk tree, and came from
> the security team (hence the lack of the longer review cycle).
>
> It's available now in the
Greg KH wrote:
And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2.
It contains one patch, which is already in the -bk tree, and came from
the security team (hence the lack of the longer review cycle).
It's available now in the normal kernel.org places:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:03:59AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> The st/ide-tape/osst llseek changes havent been applied for what reason?
>
> And what about the rest of fixups which Andrew sent you?
>
> I suppose they didnt pass the -stable criteria. Can you share your
tch itself,
> as it is small enough to do so.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
> ---
>
>
> Makefile |2 +-
> fs/eventpoll.c |3 ++-
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>
> Summary of changes from v2.6.11.1 to
an start working with 2.6.11.2.
> >
> > I think it's a small problem too, that 2.6.11 source isn't directly
> > accessable
> > through the kernel.org frontpage while there is no "full tarball" of
> > 2.6.11.X
> > trees.
>
> With that "full tarb
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the future.
It seems to me that we have V (delta?) and VI (delta incremental) for
all the other kernel patch series. So perhaps we could have both,
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
> > > > > that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will
On St 09-03-05 09:52:46, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
>
> >which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
> >that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
>
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:28:32AM +, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
>
> With that "full tarball" for 2.6.11.X the issues would be over.
> I think there should be one.
It's already there
> Marado
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
> > > > that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
> > > > way in the future.
> > >
> > >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Dominik Karall wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the future.
IMHO it sould be against 2.6.11 and not 2.6.11.1,
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 11:04, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > > which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
> > > that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the future.
IMHO it sould be against 2.6.11 and not
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
> > that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
> > way in the future.
>
> IMHO it sould be against 2.6.11
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the future.
IMHO it sould be against 2.6.11 and not 2.6.11.1, like
|2 +-
fs/eventpoll.c |3 ++-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Summary of changes from v2.6.11.1 to v2.6.11.2
Greg Kroah-Hartman:
o Linux 2.6.11.2
Linus Torvalds:
o epoll: return proper error on overflow condition
diff -Nru a/Makefile b/Makefile
--- a/Makefile 2005-03-09 00:13:29 -08:00
+++ b/Makefile 2005-03-09 00:13:29 -08:00
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 11
-EXTRAVERSION = .1
+EXTRAVERSION = .2
NAME=Woozy Numbat
# *DOCUMENTATION*
diff -Nru a/fs/eventpoll.c
diff -Nru a/Makefile b/Makefile
--- a/Makefile 2005-03-09 00:13:29 -08:00
+++ b/Makefile 2005-03-09 00:13:29 -08:00
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 11
-EXTRAVERSION = .1
+EXTRAVERSION = .2
NAME=Woozy Numbat
# *DOCUMENTATION*
diff -Nru a/fs/eventpoll.c
|2 +-
fs/eventpoll.c |3 ++-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Summary of changes from v2.6.11.1 to v2.6.11.2
Greg Kroah-Hartman:
o Linux 2.6.11.2
Linus Torvalds:
o epoll: return proper error on overflow condition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the future.
IMHO it sould be against 2.6.11 and not 2.6.11.1, like
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the future.
IMHO it sould be against 2.6.11 and not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the future.
IMHO it sould be against 2.6.11 and not
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 11:04, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Dominik Karall wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the future.
IMHO it sould be against 2.6.11 and not 2.6.11.1,
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the future.
IMHO it sould be
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:28:32AM +, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
With that full tarball for 2.6.11.X the issues would be over.
I think there should be one.
It's already there
Marado
cu
Adrian
--
Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the
On St 09-03-05 09:52:46, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the future.
It seems to me that we have V (delta?) and VI (delta incremental) for
all the other kernel patch series. So perhaps we could have both,
.
With that full tarball for 2.6.11.X the issues would be over.
I think there should be one.
There is one, did you not look?
kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.11.2.tar.gz
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body
---
Makefile |2 +-
fs/eventpoll.c |3 ++-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Summary of changes from v2.6.11.1 to v2.6.11.2
Greg Kroah-Hartman:
o Linux 2.6.11.2
Linus Torvalds:
o epoll: return proper
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:03:59AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Hi Greg,
The st/ide-tape/osst llseek changes havent been applied for what reason?
And what about the rest of fixups which Andrew sent you?
I suppose they didnt pass the -stable criteria. Can you share your thoughts
Greg KH wrote:
And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2.
It contains one patch, which is already in the -bk tree, and came from
the security team (hence the lack of the longer review cycle).
It's available now in the normal kernel.org places:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2.
It contains one patch, which is already in the -bk tree, and came from
the security team (hence the lack of the longer review cycle).
It's available now in the
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2.
It contains one patch, which is already in the -bk tree, and came from
the security team (hence the lack of the longer review cycle).
It's available
Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
way in the future.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:11:57PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 01:06:31PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2.
It contains one patch, which is already in
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:11:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
On St 09-03-05 09:52:46, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. If consensus arrives
that this
Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you need both x.y.z=x.y.z.N and x.y.z.N-1=x.y.z.N patches. My
systems which are following the -stable will just need the most recent,
but doing x.y.z-1=x.y.z.N gets really ugly for higher values of N.
bzcat ../patch-2.6.nn.[0-9].*|patch -p1
-
To
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:46:29AM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you need both x.y.z=x.y.z.N and x.y.z.N-1=x.y.z.N patches. My
systems which are following the -stable will just need the most recent,
but doing x.y.z-1=x.y.z.N gets really ugly for
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 01:06:31PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2.
It contains one patch, which is already in the -bk tree, and came from
the security team (hence the
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:57:16PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
Imagine we want to go from 2.6.11.3 to 2.6.12
The easiest way would be to keep a local fresh copy of 2.6.11 before
applying 2.6.11.3 anyway. That would solve a) and b) even more easily.
And yes, I find a) more logical. This is the
84 matches
Mail list logo
