On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 13:25 +0200, Lukas Kolbe wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 05:26 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 17:34 +0200, Lukas Kolbe wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 06:35 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > [...] > > > > Then how about convincing the Debian kernel developers to accept these > > > > patches, and work through any regressions that might be found and after > > > > that, reporting back to us? > > > > > > Ben? > > > > > > The reason I contacted you was precisely because it went into 220.127.116.11, > > > e.g. was already accepted into a -stalbe release. I didn't expect it to > > > be such an issue. > > > > That's not likely if people spread FUD about the backlog patches! > > > > Dave, did you explicitly exclude these patches from 2.6.32 when you > > submitted them to stable, or is it just that 5534979 "udp: use limited > > socket backlog" depends on a1ab77f "ipv6: udp: Optimise multicast > > reception"? The former patch doesn't look too hard to backport to > > 2.6.32 (see below). > > Anybody? > We've currently rolled out our own 2.6.32 kernel with these fixes > applied, and they indeed fix a system crash under our nfs-load. What > else can I do to get these fixes into either Debians' 2.6.32 or Greg's > stable 2.6.32 series? [...] These patches will be included in Debian's version 2.6.32-22. We'll see how that goes. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part