2.0.32-pre-* application?

2.0.32-pre-* application?

Post by Richard Stevens » Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:00:00



Hi all

A question on the use of the 2.0.32-pre-* patches... should they be
applied in sequence (i.e. get clean 2.0.31 sources, apply all patches
in order), or does each patch stand on it's own?

Cheers

Richard

 
 
 

2.0.32-pre-* application?

Post by Frank Sweetse » Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:00:00



> Hi all

> A question on the use of the 2.0.32-pre-* patches... should they be
> applied in sequence (i.e. get clean 2.0.31 sources, apply all patches
> in order), or does each patch stand on it's own?

each patch stands on it's own - you apply it to clean 2.0.31 source.

--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.res.wpi.net RedHat 4.9.1 Linux 2.0.32p5 i586   | at public servers
I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is a
fundamental error.  Be thankful you are not my student.  You would not get a
high grade for such a design :-)
(Andrew Tanenbaum to Linus Torvalds)

 
 
 

2.0.32-pre-* application?

Post by Juhani Rantan » Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:00:00


On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 09:39:02 GMT, Richard Stevenson


>A question on the use of the 2.0.32-pre-* patches... should they be
>applied in sequence (i.e. get clean 2.0.31 sources, apply all patches
>in order), or does each patch stand on it's own?

I haven't patched those ones myself, but AFAIK Linux kernel patches must be
applied sequentially in order. At least it has been like this in the past.

--
Juhani Rantanen
Tyvikatu 17 C 13  33340 Tampere   http://www.sgic.fi/~misty/

 
 
 

2.0.32-pre-* application?

Post by bill davids » Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:00:00





|
|
| > I assume there will be a fix for the fragmented packet attack
| > recently revealed, that's a must have now that the word is out.
|
| It was put in as of pre4 :)

That's fast ;-)

I passed from pre1 to pre5 with a token effort at pre3, and I just
looked at the 5to6 diffs and didn't see anything in the net stuff.
Now I know why.

In as much as pre5 is being stable for me, I think I'll let someone
else shake out pre6, there's a LOT of TRICKY code in there, and
while I'm impressed I know how hard it is to get it right for all
cases the first time.

I assume without a KCS this has to do with the F00F recovery
minutia, but it's working on my systems and I'll wait a few days.
I'll reread that code with a CPU manual, perhaps.
--

"As a software development model, Anarchy does not scale well."
                -Dave Welch

 
 
 

2.0.32-pre-* application?

Post by bill davids » Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:00:00



| In as much as pre5 is being stable for me, I think I'll let someone
| else shake out pre6, there's a LOT of TRICKY code in there, and
| while I'm impressed I know how hard it is to get it right for all
| cases the first time.

I lied... I tried pre-6 last night, and it went out twice with GPF.
Never saw Linux do that, just a GPF message, no registers, and solid
hung.

I had a kernel compile runing with -j3, and a ppp link up with an
ftp running. I was switching between consoles, and hit cntl-F2
instead of Alt-F2. bang! Repeated it once more, failed again. 'Nuff
for me.
--

"As a software development model, Anarchy does not scale well."
                -Dave Welch

 
 
 

2.0.32-pre-* application?

Post by Dr. Ram Samudral » Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:00:00



>I lied... I tried pre-6 last night, and it went out twice with GPF.
>Never saw Linux do that, just a GPF message, no registers, and solid
>hung.

Well, the new version is out, and it appears to be quite robust on the
non-SMP machines at least.

Quote:>"As a software development model, Anarchy does not scale well."
>            -Dave Welch

Well, Linux has gotten this far with such a model.

--Ram


                                 The charm and grace of computing science
lies not just in the theoretical aspect nor in the programming aspect. It
is the amalgam that makes computing science the most exquisite of all the
sciences. --Ram Samudrala

 
 
 

2.0.32-pre-* application?

Post by ch.. » Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:00:00


On 16 Nov 1997 15:27:22 -0500, Frank Sweetser



>> Hi all

>> A question on the use of the 2.0.32-pre-* patches... should they be
>> applied in sequence (i.e. get clean 2.0.31 sources, apply all patches
>> in order), or does each patch stand on it's own?

>each patch stands on it's own - you apply it to clean 2.0.31 source.

>--

Sorry if Im asking the same question in a different way, but are the
prepatches cumulative i.e. pre-patch-2.1.31-2 incldes all fixes in
pre-patch-2.1.31-1?  Or do they need *all* of them need to be applied?

Thanks


 
 
 

1. Difference between 2.0.32 and pre-2.0.32-6?

I've built and run the pre-2.0.32 version 6 kernel and just noticed
the released 2.0.32 version.  I've downloaded and diff'd against my
patched sources.  There are several differences.  Can anyone highlight
the main changes?  (And in particular should I rebuild)?

David Ronis

2. caching

3. 2.0.32 (pre-patch): New kernel is good!

4. Mandrake 7.1 DSL / DHCP woes

5. 2.0.33 pre 3 and adaptec 2940uw -- better or worse than .32?

6. HELP STARTING XF_S3

7. Kernel Statistics in 32-bit Applications

8. SOR505: oss497c $~@&$

9. Porting applications from 32 to 64 bits

10. Request For Test Of Windows CRC-32/MD-5 Application

11. using a 32 bit so from a 64 bit application.

12. How to convert 32 bit application

13. Compiling 32 bit applications on Solaris 8 using cc or gcc