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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
