Sorry I must have given completely the wrong idea I had
*NO* suggestion of taking the patches from my attachment.
It was just to show how I resolved the nominated mainline changes
to the 3.0.y tree.

Please try this exact order to check out the stable tree and apply the changes.
I just did this and it worked for me.

git co -b fixes-stable-3.0.y remotes/stable/linux-3.0.y
git cherry-pick be768912a49b10b68e96fbd8fa3cab0adfbd3091
git cherry-pick 2bbc6942273b5b3097bd265d82227bdd84b351b2

  * Now this one has a conflict - but is easily resolved:
git cherry-pick a4ac9fea016fc5c09227eb479bd35e34978323a4

   - Replace the variable realloc_head in mainline patch with add_head
in 3.0.y stable branch
(two lines).

On 28 September 2012 09:24, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:03:19AM +1000, Andrew Worsley wrote:
>> I attach a diff against v3.0.43 at the end for reference - as gmail
>> will expand tabs et cetera
>> and I assume you would (very sensibly) only merge existing changes.
>
> No, I can't do that at all.  Have you read the
> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt file for how to get patches into
> the stable kernel tree?  I can't take things that are not already in
> Linus's tree.

I believe I was following this particular rule:
----
 - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
----
and using this format:
------
 - If the patch requires other patches as prerequisites which can be
   cherry-picked than this can be specified in the following format in
   the sign-off area:

     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x
    Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

   The tag sequence has the meaning of:
     git cherry-pick a1f84a3
     git cherry-pick 1b9508f
     git cherry-pick fd21073
     git cherry-pick <this commit>
-----
Again sorry, I never intended you to take that patch and apply it. That's why it
was all one giant patch. I will give you a list of patches and
nominate the order
which was just in the natural historical order (oldest to newest) with
the resolution
described below.

I can't see where it says how to handle conflicts in the cherry-picked
patches but if it
is a problem - just drop the last conflicting patch. Otherwise drop all of them.

.....
>> Yep I did the merge directly on v3.0.42 (what I had at the time) and
>> got one conflict where a variable name had changed
>> which was very easy to resolve by hand. The only problem was with:
>>
>>  a4ac9fea01 PCI : Calculate right add_size
>>
>> Where I had to change realloc_head variable to add_head
>>
>> Here's my log for 3.0.y:
>>
>> *   34e81ae Merge remote branch 'remotes/stable/linux-3.0.y' into 
>> v3.0.42-fixes
....
>> * | b40aff3 PCI : Calculate right add_size
>> * | 3fb7b76 PCI : ability to relocate assigned pci-resources
>> * | 4d181ba PCI: honor child buses add_size in hot plug configuration
....
>
> I don't understand this log at all.
>
> Exactly what git commits, in Linus's tree, in what order, should I apply
> to 3.0.y in order to get this to work?

Please see the steps at the start of this e-mail or ask for more
specific questions about what
you want. The above log shows the order the main line patches were
applied - with the last to be
applied listed first (as git log normally produces). i.e.

   4d181ba then 3fb7b76 and finally b40aff3 (which has the conflict)

Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to