Re: Network died completely in 2.6.29 - also on m68k :)
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 02:19, Michael Schmitz
>> > So, I tryed to pull out a m68k-v188.8.131.52 from git, but appearantly there is no
>> > such thing. So¸ it is probably to add the "Disable GRO on legacy netif_rx
>> > path" patch (in posting above) to the v2.6.29 branch, no?
>> Usually I do not track stable myself, that's a distributor's issue ;-)
>> But I gave it a try, and did:
>> git remote add stable
>> git remote update
>> git merge v184.108.40.206
>> (git merge stable/linux-2.6.29.y should have worked, too)
>> and pushed the result to m68k-v2.6.29. However, I don't know if I
>> should keep on doing
>> this for each stable release, as you can easily do it yourself,
>> without having to wait for me.
> But it's so much easier if you do it :-) With that description, there's no
> reason why it could not be done by someone else, though. I don't think there is
> enough demand for a stable m68k kernel git tree to warrant that extra tree. It
> would be a matter of setting up a separate git repository, right?
>> Furthermore, it complicates the process of extracting patches for e.g.
>> the Debian kernel,
>> unless I would rebase the m68k-v2.6.29 branch on top of the latest
>> stable version.
>> But I prefer not to rebase long-lived branches like the stable branch.
>> What do people think?
> I think a distributor, i.e. Debian will pick up the patch in question as part of
> the generic bugfixes anyway. Having it appear a second time as part of the m68k
> patches would make things harder, really.
Indeed. And now I pulled stable into m68k-v2.6.29, `git format-patch
give you the patches between .29 and .29.1, too.
> Don't rebase m68k-v2.6.29 unless absolutely necessary, please.
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- firstname.lastname@example.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds