On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:29:23 +0400, "Oleg Drokin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 10:55:21AM +0000, JP Howard wrote: > > > They should apply cleanly, if you are worried about some offsets, > > > this is ok and should not concern you. (just use -s switch to patch > > > command to not see unneeded output ;) ) > > I got quite a few HUNK FAILED. Also, I found that with the data > > logging patches these other patches didn't apply cleanly. > > Hm. You apply the patches in order, is that right? > Yes.
> > Could you please tell me which, if any, of these patches are > > important? Also, I noticed 07-mmaped_data_loss_fix.diff here: > > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0201.3/1161.html > > 07-mmaped_data_loss_fix.diff is in 2.4.19 already, may be you are just > downloading patches from the wrong dir? > I've been searching the archives to see what patches are around. I noticed this patch and figured it sounded important; it's not related to my question above about the 2.4.19.pending patches. > Other patches are some cosmetic cleanups, also new block allocator, but > this block allocator is uncompatible with Chris' data logging patches > yet, and you need Chris' patches more. There also this NFS fix I > recommended and two not very important fixes that you would probably > never ever need. (fixes are patches 13-remount-rw-fix.diff and > 04-item_alignment_fix.diff) > Well, it sounds like there's nothing for us here to worry about then! If we ever need NFS, I'll make sure that we apply the patch that you mentioned. Thanks again, Jeremy
