Re: [PARPORT] 0.91 ppSCSI patch on 2.2.16

From: Timothy Laswell (
Date: Sat Dec 23 2000 - 11:17:26 EST

  • Next message: ebi1: "[PARPORT] no more nibble data"

    I got the same thing on proc_fs.h and hand patched the file. Copied the
    appropriate lines from the .rej file into it. I guess this could very
    easily mess up future patches. That is why we should create a tar of the
    source tree before making any irrevocable patches. I personaly burn all
    my originals (source tarballs and patches) to a CD so I can always
    recreate the whole thing. Oh yes, save the alternate config to a
    different directory each time you make some changes. I can't count the
    number of times I have had to recompile the kernel to get the right
    combination of modules in my kernel. Of course 2/3rds of the problems I
    was experiencing was because my BIOS was messed up and had my serial port

    Now all I have to do is make my idescsi a module so I can unload it to
    load my onscsi module.

    On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 wrote:

    > Trying the 0.91 ppSCSI patch on the 2.2.16 build tree, the following
    > resulted:
    > patching file linux-2.2.10/include/linux/proc_fs.h
    > Hunk #1 FAILED at 206.
    > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
    > linux-2.2.10/include/linux/p
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > proc_fs.h apparently don't match what this patch was expecting. Would
    > there
    > be any consequences from improvising an irregular edit of the enum
    > structure
    > being patched in proc_fs.h, beyond possibly tripping up some future
    > patch?

    -- To unsubscribe, send mail to: --
    -- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 11:37:43 EST