On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 16:54 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Which wouldn't be a good thing, as I said it's better to split the > changes where it can be, to make bisecting easier. > > > To be a little more constructive: Is this patch order correct? > > 1) libfshelp_rlock.patch: implement fshelp_rlock_* functions > > 2) libdiskfs_file_record_lock.patch: implement diskfs_S_file_record_lock > > and modify diskfs_S_* accordingly, initialize and release lock_status. > > 3) libnetfs_file_record_lock.patch: implement netfs_S_file_record_lock > > 4) libtrivfs_file_record_lock.patch: implement trivfs_S_file_record_lock > > 5) hurd_new_RPC.patch: add new RPC: file_record_lock > > 6) libfshelp-tests_rlock.patch: implement file_record_lock tests > > Possibly. making sure by at least running make at each step would > confirm this.
The build has been made with patches applied in three chunks: Build 1: 1) Build 2: 1)+2)+3)+4) Build 3: All 1)+2)+3)+4)+5)+6) The *.deb builds went OK, but the packages were not installed after each build. When importing the quilt patches using git-quiltpimort there are remaining EOF and whitespace warnings: (haven't found these yet) libfshelp_rlock.patch /home/srs/Hurd/DEBs/patches/file_record_locking/git/upstream-hurd/.git/rebase-apply/patch:263: new blank line at EOF. + /home/srs/Hurd/DEBs/patches/file_record_locking/git/upstream-hurd/.git/rebase-apply/patch:969: new blank line at EOF. + warning: 2 lines add whitespace errors. hurd_add_RPC.patch /home/srs/Hurd/DEBs/patches/file_record_locking/git/upstream-hurd/.git/rebase-apply/patch:36: new blank line at EOF. + warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors. libfshelp-tests_rlock.patch /home/srs/Hurd/DEBs/patches/file_record_locking/git/upstream-hurd/.git/rebase-apply/patch:64: new blank line at EOF. + warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.
