Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-23 Thread Steven Cole
Daniel Stone wrote: >linux-2.4.0-test12 + reiserfs + test13-pre4 + reiserfs makefile fix (only >changes fs/reiserfs/Makefile) + netfilter patch-o-matic stuff (only touches >net/ipv4/netfilter) + test13-pre4-ac2. I was able to patch and build 2.4.0test13pre4-ac2. I did not see the problem with

Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-23 Thread Daniel Stone
succeeded at 511 (offset 9 lines). > >> > 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file > >> > arch/i386/kernel/smp.c.rej > >> > > >> > Works fine if I reverse it and then put it back in. ? > >> > >> Its a bug in my patch - get 1

Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-23 Thread Mark Orr
gt;> > 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file >> > arch/i386/kernel/smp.c.rej >> > >> > Works fine if I reverse it and then put it back in. ? >> >> Its a bug in my patch - get 13pre4ac2 .. > > Um. > Subject: Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - pa

Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-23 Thread Daniel Stone
s to file arch/i386/kernel/smp.c.rej > > > > Works fine if I reverse it and then put it back in. ? > > Its a bug in my patch - get 13pre4ac2 .. Um. Subject: Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails It's _IN_ 13-4ac2. d - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-23 Thread Alan Cox
> patching file arch/i386/kernel/smp.c > Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] > Apply anyway? [n] y > Hunk #1 FAILED at 278. > Hunk #2 succeeded at 511 (offset 9 lines). > 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file arch/i386/kernel/smp.c.rej > > Works fine if

Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-23 Thread Alan Cox
patching file arch/i386/kernel/smp.c Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] Apply anyway? [n] y Hunk #1 FAILED at 278. Hunk #2 succeeded at 511 (offset 9 lines). 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file arch/i386/kernel/smp.c.rej Works fine if I

Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-23 Thread Daniel Stone
if I reverse it and then put it back in. ? Its a bug in my patch - get 13pre4ac2 .. Um. Subject: Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails It's _IN_ 13-4ac2. d - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please re

Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-23 Thread Mark Orr
/i386/kernel/smp.c.rej Works fine if I reverse it and then put it back in. ? Its a bug in my patch - get 13pre4ac2 .. Um. Subject: Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails It's _IN_ 13-4ac2. I applied test13-pre4-ac2 here, and it applied cleanly. Are you applying it to a clean tree

Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-23 Thread Daniel Stone
arch/i386/kernel/smp.c.rej Works fine if I reverse it and then put it back in. ? Its a bug in my patch - get 13pre4ac2 .. Um. Subject: Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails It's _IN_ 13-4ac2. I applied test13-pre4-ac2 here, and it applied cleanly. Are you applying

Re: test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-23 Thread Steven Cole
Daniel Stone wrote: linux-2.4.0-test12 + reiserfs + test13-pre4 + reiserfs makefile fix (only changes fs/reiserfs/Makefile) + netfilter patch-o-matic stuff (only touches net/ipv4/netfilter) + test13-pre4-ac2. I was able to patch and build 2.4.0test13pre4-ac2. I did not see the problem with

test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-22 Thread Daniel Stone
I get this when patch'ing in test13-pre4-ac2 (with ReiserFS and Netfilter patches, none of which touch SMP). patching file arch/i386/kernel/smp.c Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] Apply anyway? [n] y Hunk #1 FAILED at 278. Hunk #2 succeeded at 511 (offset 9

test13-pre4-ac2 - part of diff fails

2000-12-22 Thread Daniel Stone
I get this when patch'ing in test13-pre4-ac2 (with ReiserFS and Netfilter patches, none of which touch SMP). patching file arch/i386/kernel/smp.c Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] Apply anyway? [n] y Hunk #1 FAILED at 278. Hunk #2 succeeded at 511 (offset 9