Bug#325117: NFS problem(s) with kernel 2.6
> Hi,
Hello,
many thanks for your kind reply.
> is it possible for you to test the 2.6.12 kernel package
> that has been produced for Sarge. Its available at the
> following URL as 2.6.12-5.99
Well, I did try some packages mentioned to be available on
http://packages.vergenet.net/testing/linux-2.6/
[linux-image-2.6.12-1-686_2.6.12-5.99.sarge1_i386.deb and
dependancies] and they didn't work, either, or more precisely showed
the same symptom.
[This and a patch I found for the MSB-problem of the 32bit
cookies (or even 64bit cookies without export-option) for which
SGI IRIX 6(.5) is notorius for and which I applied to earlier 2.6er
kernels seem to indicate, that the problem hasn't vanished in
between and is not related to (only) the 32bit nfs-cookie thing.
I'm not sure if I mentioned that in the original message.]
> It would be good to know if the problem was fixed between
> 2.6.8 and 2.6.12.
I don't think so (see above).
> If not I would recommend starting a dialog with the upstream NFS
> maintainers, I can point you to the right place.
That would be nice thank you. I'm willing to try everything that
I'm carefully guided to :-), as long as my resources allow.
Since it is important to me for this to work, I'd like to help
where I can.
> If so, we have a starting point to try and isolate the change
> that resolve the problem. Though it may prove too extensive
> to be appropriate for backporting to 2.6.8.
Yes, I do understand this, and I would gladly be willing to
switch to a newer kernel. 2.6.8 is a non-optimal choice anyway
in my eyes, being the last kernel which has practically no
useful (udev) classes but the most general (e.g. the 'dvb' class
is still missing from its modules/drivers).
Thus it wouldn't be that hard for me to part with 2.6.8, but
a transition beyond 2.6.12 (e.g. 2.6.13) with 'sarge' might
be hard (or impossible?), too, regarding its 'tools' dependancies.
The most important thing would be, to learn what's going wrong
with 'nfs', though, I think. At least to me and may be to you, too.
Thanks again and regards,
Ruediger Oberhage
Reply to: