Patches version problem

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

I download again the latest patches for 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 and I've a funny (and IMHO *very-problematic*) situation:
=====

gismo:/usr/src# ls -l kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.*
- -rw-r--r--    1 luca     luca         9470 Mar  1 08:15
kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.3.diff.bz2
- -rw-r--r--    1 luca     luca        12582 Mar  2 12:24
kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.4.diff.bz2
gismo:/usr/src#

gismo:/usr/src# ls -l /home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.*
- -rw-------    1 luca     luca        15554 Mar  6 13:56
/home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.3.diff.bz2
- -rw-r--r--    1 luca     luca        12569 Mar  6 13:56
/home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.4.diff.bz2
gismo:/usr/src#
=====

So, there're 2 different patches with the same name and this can cause
inconsistency: if you release a patch at 20040305 (the last nigth), why do you call it 'acpi-20040220'??? I mean, I use 'acpi-20040220' since 20040301 (as from the 'ls -l') and now I'll use 'acpi-20040220' from 20040305: they are different, as the size suggests, but from a 'cat /proc/acpi/info' I don't have any way to know which one I'm using (the 20040301 or 20040305).

Again, why the same name?

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFASc5OVAp7Xm10JmkRAiqqAJ4twhxRmJlrLVubOR/NeYmnYx+5agCfQ+te RbZlgJiAeXpcddzwTFluz2I=
=s3uL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click

Luca,
The 20040220 in the patch version is the ACPICA version number -- the version of the core AML interpreter, and it is updated only upon upstream updates to the interpreter.

Sometimes the ACPI patch will update this number when it pulls a new version of the interpreter, but more often it will not.

yes, this can be confusing. We used to update this number always, but that turned out to be even more confusing as people wouldn't know what interpreter version they were running. Still more confusing is the fact that in the latest kernel, the patch will periodically become out of date and no longer apply when the baseline kernel pulls the patch from us. This is unavoidable -- unless you run the patch against a frozen release -- eg. patch 2.6.3 instead of patching 2.6.4.

If you're really intent on getting the latest w/o any confusion, then use bk rather than plain patches. details here:
http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/patches/README.ACPI

cheers,
-Len

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello Len,

thank you for the clear explanation, now I understood.

No, until now and I hope for a long time I continue to use the latest ACPI release, so I'll catch a new ACPI patch only when you post a message like '[BKPATCH] ACPI for 2.6' on this list ;-)

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFATZjEVAp7Xm10JmkRAr0/AJ0f1J0+VRMXim5Fea2QKx7RU62sdQCeKmTN vmfetcQHdVt6GccszUqt7R4=
=BTu5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click