Re: [PATCH] [RFC] adding support for .patches and /proc/patches.gz
From: Jon Oberheide
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 00:00:55 EST
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 14:37, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Jon Oberheide wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > This feature has been brought up several times before, as can be seen
> > here:
> > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0404.3/0798.html
> > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0203.1/0598.html
> > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9803.0/0223.html
> > For those unfamiliar, a file linux/.patches would be adding to the
> > source tree. When applying patches to the source tree, descriptive
> > information would be written to .patches. After compilation and running
> > of this kernel, the .patches information would be accessible through
> > /proc/patches.gz; similar to the /proc/config.gz feature.
> The first question would be, patches between the current kernel and
> what? Vendor kernel, people may not have it. Kernel.org kernal, just the
> patches to a current vendor kernel diff would be pretty huge in some cases.
Any patches applied against the current vanilla kernel.org kernel would
be listed in .patches. This would include vendor, third-party, and even
Keep in mind, .patches would not contain the entire patch, as that would
be WAY to large, but just a short entry such as the name, date last
modified, and date applied of the patch file.
> Let's say it looks like a high cost/benefit ratio, would be much less
> effective unless it were used for every patch, and feels like something
> you might want to do within an organization rather than as a general
Exactly as I stated, adoption would be the hardest part. Paul's idea of
adding an option to patch w/o breaking POSIX sounds like a way to go.
Of course that would require widespread documentation updates and
contacting vendors but would be very possible.
> Sorry, you asked for comments...
No need to be sorry, thanks! :)
Description: This is a digitally signed message part