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 ---- / [email protected] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [email protected] 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 / --------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
