[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: what is patched and what is not?



"Ian! D. Allen [NCFreeNet]" wrote:
> 
> I'm trying to pick a kernel for ext3.
> 
> Looking at the web page (http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/ext3/), I see
> little that clues me in to the fact that "most" of ext3 is already in
> (some|most|all) of the 2.4 series kernels.
> 
> Am I correct that most of the patches listed on the web page now are
> actually bug fixes to the existing ext3 code, as opposed to previous
> patches that actually added ext3 functionality to the stock kernels?
> New arrivals to the page will want to know that, especially given all
> the out-of-date documentation floating around the Net saying you have
> to patch to add ext3 to the kernel.
> 
> As best I understand what I see on the web page, patches get put there
> because of the time lag in getting them into the actual kernel.  A patch
> put on the web page for kernel X.Y is eventually rolled into kernel X.Z
> (for some Z > Y) and the patch is unneccessary for anyone running kernels
> X.P for all P >= Z.

Yup.  Before ext3 was integrated, the patches were of course
whole-filesystem additions.

After Alan (and later Linus) merged the filesystem, the web page
became a staging area for patches, for people to test prior to
submitting the patch for mainstream inclusion.  Nowadays, the
lag between the posting of a patch and its inclusion at kernel.org
is about one week.

It's been suggested that I add "this was integrated in x.y.z" to
the changelog.   I need to do that...

If you're looking for a kernel, I'd suggest 2.4.18-pre7.  It
works OK and has current ext3.





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]