Re: lenny updates
Hi Dann
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 11:17:09PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> 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.
Done that now.
> > 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.
This tells me that there is an easy way to check that. How is that done?
I assume some files are compared, but I can not find that in the debian directory (without building).
> > #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.
I think you need to have a quad-core amd64 for this. But let us commit it
as it do not seem to hurt.
> > #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/
Ok, I'll ask him at once.
> (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.
Maybe so. The openvz development team has proven to provide quite well
tested kernels. However the safer approach may still be to stick to the
specific issues.
> > #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.
Good. Please tell if you want me to prepare some patch or check in something.
> > #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?
Yes it is found upstream. See the file
http://download.openvz.org/kernel/branches/2.6.26/current/patches/patch-chekhov.1-combined.gz
The current patch do not touch any nfs/ files and upstream does. The patch
now in use was not fully completed when it was incorporated by Maximilian.
> > #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).
True.
> > #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.
Yes this one is really important. I'll change the severity now.
Best regards,
// Ola
> Thanks Ola!
>
> --
> dann frazier
>
>
--
--- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ----
/ ola@inguza.com Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@debian.org 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: