Re: lenny updates
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:44:04PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi Dann
>
> You asked about the latest status and here it is.
> Please tell which ones you want me to fix for the next lenny release of the kernel. I'll prepare
> a patch and regression test that version for you.
>
> #510787:
> Refers to an other bug report that was not openvz specific. Should it be
> forwarded to an non-openvz version of the kernel or kept here?
I don't think it really matters - you can reassign to linux-2.6 if you
like though.
> In any case I have added latest information to the report and told where
> the problem has been forwarded.
Thanks!
> #511165:
> Patch exist for 2.6.24 and 2.6.26. Fix is available in
> http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.26-openvz;a=commit;h=b5e1f74cee5bc2c45bdca53a7218fb8de89215dd
> Not sure if this is an ABI breaker.
Seems straightforward, and shouldn't change the ABI. I'll commit it
assuming my test build shows that.
> #500876:
> Fix available in:
> http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.26-openvz;a=commit;h=777e8164ebf8a03e43511983cdec472f8691a8af
> Problem is about to be verified. Regression tested without problems seen.
I couldn't reproduce this one (tried dual quad core intel server & a
single quad core amd), but user claims this fixed the bug for me and I
haven't seen any issues with this patch so its been committed.
> #503097:
> Reported as http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=930
> Seems to be a duplicate of #500876 above.
Cool. If you think so, it might be good to have Carlos test one of
these builds to verify:
http://people.debian.org/~dannf/bugs/500876/
(Tomorrow's snapshot builds should also include it)
> #505174:
> This is a request to go up to the latest version that includes fixes for
> all the ones in this mail that describe that there is a fix available.
> Unfortunatly there are ABI breakers...
Its probably a good idea to stick with specific issues/fixes now that
its a stable release.
> #508773:
> Patch available in http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1054
> Fix in http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.24-openvz;a=commit;h=20bd90762d4df4a3c7c247b660c696bdd0a27709
> Do not look like an ABI breaker to me.
Yep, definitely shouldn't break the ABI, and seems like a good
candidate.
> #500145:
> Forwarded to http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1143
> Marked as dupliate of http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1067
> Not solved yet.
ok
> #501985:
> From: maximilian attems
> the upstream nfs fixes are abi breakers and thus can't be integrated
> at this point they will be for the first point release were abi
> breaking will be allowed again.
What is the fix for this - does upstream openvz include it?
> #494445:
> There are a number of problems in this area. Fixes are available.
> However some of them are ABI breakers.
The nf_conntrack_ipv6 module doesn't appear to be in 2.6.26-13. Maybe
it was disabled because of this bug? At this point, turning it
on/fixing probably falls into the category of a feature requests that
doesn't enable hardware, so wouldn't have a sufficient severity (>=
important).
> #500645:
> Fix available in http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1034
> http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.26-openvz;a=commit;h=6d18ba377cfa3e86ee830fe6a5fce52b8fd51039
> I can not see that this is an ABI breaker, so it should be possibly to
> apply this one without problem.
The patch itself certainly looks trivial enough - but the bug is only of
severity "normal". If we think this actually deserves a >= important
severity, we should bump the severity of the report.
Thanks Ola!
--
dann frazier
Reply to: