Bug#394392: Alternative msync() fix for 2.6.18?
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
> We in Debian have applied your "mm: msync() cleanup" patch (plus the
> other mm changes needed for this one) to our 2.6.18 kernel because
> it's needed for LSB 3.1 compliance. Given that apparently no fix for
> the induced filesystem corruption is coming forth and we're trying to
> get a release of Debian out, I was wondering if it would be possible
> to create an alternative msync() fix that doesn't really on those mm
> changes. Since 2.6.17 and 2.6.18 are currently not LSB 3.1 compliant,
> I think this might also be something for the -stable branch.
>
> Do you think this is possible and do you have any interest in creating
> such a patch? This would really help us a lot.
Could you point us to a description (or testcase) showing how the
2.6.18 kernel's msync() is not LSB 3.1 compliant? Fixing that might
well be a better direction for Debian to go with a 2.6.18 kernel,
than applying an ever-increasing number of backports from 2.6.19
and 2.6.20. But I really cannot tell at this point, because I've
no idea what this "msync not LSB 3.1" compliant issue is. If it's
something easy to fix, I'd be glad to do so.
Hugh
Reply to: