Control: tag -1 moreinfo Hi, Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it> (2016-12-17): > Hi, > >Your mail client mangled the diff. > > > > sorry for that > > > the diff is simple:> + [ Tom Downes ] > > + * Fix OOM_ADJ handling with a backportable approach > > + (Closes: #843663) > > > > ^^ a typo in a variable name was preventing OOM_ADJ from being correctly set in the init script > > > > What's the impact of that bug? > > when kernel is OOM, boinc tasks should be killed before other tasks. > boinc is something that shouldn't impact the rest of the system > (voluntary computing), so it runs with lower nice level, and should > be killed before other programs in case the system gets out of memory. > > this typo was preventing the second OOM handling to be correctly set, so people might have got > some other program killed instead of a boinc task. > > >How can that possibly work? The init script doesn't have an X>display... > > this is a known problem/issue, usually people can do GPU computing with a reload of the boinc-client > daemon, in this case the init system picks the X server up. > (this is how things should work, I'm clueless about such stuff and I avoid touching it when it > "works") > > thanks for the review, I'm interested in seeing an updated debdiff with a better wording for the xhost issue. The proposed one suggests a syntax error but says nothing about the permission issues which need a fix. Similarly, the OOM_ADJ handling could be more descriptive, something like “Try both oom_score_adj and oom_adj when adjusting the OOM score (Closes: #843663).”? KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature