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
disabled.
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 alanfrederiksen@netzero.net 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: linux-parport-request@torque.net --
-- 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