[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#394392: msync() in recent kernels fails LSB

On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 17:08 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> So it seems that the patches needed for msync() conformance we applied
> from 2.6.19 to our 2.6.18 cause filesystem corruption, see the current
> discussion on this on lkml.  From what I understand it, plain 2.6.18
> is not LSB 3.1 conform and you need some fixes which are associated
> with filesystem corruption.  While Andrew, Linus and co are currently
> trying to come up with a patch, I think it might be better for us to
> simply back out these patches.  What doe it take to get an exception
> for this LSB test?  Surely the reasons cited above (fails with 2.6.18,
> a fairly current kernel and the patches to fix it are associated with
> fs corruption) are pretty good arguments for an exception...

I brought this up at our weekly conference call, which generated quite a
lot of discussion.  The argument against issuing a waiver is that this
isn't strictly required; a distro could fix the problem by downgrading
the kernel to 2.6.16.

I've also forwarded your message to Ian Murdock, who is the current
chair of the LSB Steering Committee.

The process for getting an exception is as follows:

 - Release a product with a problem.

 - Run the tests, and fail in some way.

 - Request a waiver from the LSB Specification Authority.  There's a
link for doing so from the certification site.

Of course, the problem is that we have to make a decision now, so we
also have an unofficial process of discussing known issues.  That
process has already been started.

Reply to: