On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 09:56:16PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:45:25PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 14:50 +0200, Nikola Ciprich wrote: > > > > thanks for the patch! I'll put this on our testing boxes... > > > > > > With a patch that frobs the starting value close to overflowing I hope, > > > otherwise we'll not hear from you in like 7 months ;-) > > > > > > > Are You going to push this upstream so we can ask Greg to push this to > > > > -stable? > > > > > > Yeah, I think we want to commit this with a -stable tag, Ingo? > > > > yeah - and we also want a Reported-by tag and an explanation of how > > it can crash and why it matters in practice. I can then stick it into > > the urgent branch for Linus. (probably will only hit upstream in the > > merge window though.) > > Has this been pushed or has the problem been solved somehow? Time is > against us on this bug as more boxes will crash as they reach 200 days > of uptime... > > In any case, feel free to use me as a Reported-by, my full report of the > problem being <20110430173905.ga25...@tty.gr>. > > FWIW and if I understand correctly, my symptoms were caused by *two* > different bugs: > a) the 54 bits wraparound at 208 days that Peter fixed above, > b) a kernel crash at ~215 days related to RT tasks, fixed by > 305e6835e05513406fa12820e40e4a8ecb63743c (already in -stable).
So, what do I do here as part of the .32-longterm kernel? Is there a fix that is in Linus's tree that I need to apply here? confused, greg k-h _______________________________________________ stable mailing list stable@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
