Bug#286803: kernel-source-2.6.9: Kind of a memory leak in kernel 2.6?
reassign 286803 kernel-source-2.6.8
thanks
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:09:53AM +0100, Ingo Strüwing wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 23.02.2005, 12:28 +0900 schrieb Horms:
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 03:33:30PM +0100, Ingo Strüwing wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, den 10.02.2005, 18:28 +0900 schrieb Horms:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:07:00AM +0100, Ingo Strüwing wrote:
> > > > > Am Donnerstag, den 10.02.2005, 10:33 +0900 schrieb Horms:
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 04:50:49PM +0100, Ingo Strüwing wrote:
> > > > > > > I have additional information:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - The problem exists in 2.6.10 too. (BTW. should I report it there too?)
> > > > > > > - The problem exists on ext3 filesystems too.
> > > > > > > - The problem does not exist in 2.4.27.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, all good information. You should probably just reasign the bug
> > > > > > to kernel-source-2.6.10 as 2.6.9 is slowly on its way out of the debian tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > What does 'reasign' mean? Is there a way to move a report from one
> > > > > packet to another? Or is it just reporting it again against 2.6.10?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you can move the bug.
> > > > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
> > > >
> > > > Or someone else (like say, me) can do it for you.
> > >
> > > Yes. Please. I would appreciate if you would move it to either 2.6.10 or
> > > 2.6.8. Wichever has the higher chances to solve it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Also any feedback on 2.6.8 would be good, that is the target for sarge,
> > > > > > 2.6.10 is just in sid for people to experiment and so we can
> > > > > > see what has been fixed upstream when problems crop up in 2.6.8.
> > >
> > > I tested this now "successfully" on 2.6.8-13 and 2.6.10-5.
> >
> > Does that mean the bug has been resolved and can be closed?
>
> No. Of course not. The quotes around "successfully" mean that it is not
> really a success, but that I was successful in reproducing the problem.
> I hoped that this was clear in conjuction with my sentence 9 lines above
> that one.
>
> The bug is still unresolved and I desire a solution heavily.
Sorry for my misunderstanding.
I have reassigned it to 2.6.8, as it
is the target for Sarge and thus should
get the most attention.
--
Horms
Reply to: