On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 02:19, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Mika, > > > By the way, your patch is included in Debian unstable > [liborbit0-0.5.17-5]: > > Please get rid of this patch - it is an horrible, gross hack - and it > should have a fairly nasty performance / stability impact on evo. [AFAIR] as it > progressively starves it of file descriptors. > BS.
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:23, Ronald Kuetemeier wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:40:45PM +0100, Joaquim Fellmann wrote: > > > Wrong too. > > > It seems to be Orbit assuming a kernel routine to return some value but > > > receiving something else. > > > Actually it was a kernel bug (that got fixed) on which Orbit was > > > relying. > > > Problem is that Orbit didn't get fixed. > > > > Maybe you should read the thread on evolution-hackers,and then > > contact some kernel hackers, Alan, Dave and Al come to mind. My patch > > resets new 2.5 behavior for/in Orbit to 2.4 behavior. But the real > > problem is within Gnome, so far I only hear from the Gnome/Orbit > > maintainers it's the Kernel without any proof. Just saying so is not > > enough, I know it's kind of hard to find a problem in a few hundred > > thousand kernel and Gnome/evolution source lines. Been there done > > that. > > Joaquim is/was entirely right; Ronald - we told you repeatedly that > since it works perfectly on all flavours of Unix except some broken Why are you making things up, nobody ever told me it was working on other system. Repeatedly, _NOT_ once. Here is a quote from Alan Cox and David S. Miller. From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 30 Oct 2002 23:59:35 +0000 On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 21:37, Ronald Kuetemeier wrote: > What happens in 2.5 is the getpeername system call sets the > u.usock.sun_path to it's peer, while 2.4 leaves it empty. Im suprised it changed at all. Is this a SOCK_STREAM or SOCK_DGRAM socket and is it the connecting or accepting end if so ? The only think which may have changed, behavior wise, is the path_lookup() call. This was done during one of Al Viro's cleanupsof the VFS so he'd need to be consulted if this is causing problems. Otherwise 2.4 and 2.5 AF_UNIX are identical. So I was wrong and looked in the wrong place, even glanced over the bug and didn't see it. Fine, but please don't make things up. I pointed people to the thread so they could make a decision for them selfs, I did not include the patch which forced people to read the thread including your comments. So please stop making things up, your attitude reflects deeply on Ximian. Ronald > version of linux-2.5, it's _clearly_ a 2.5 kernel bug. Since it seems > you persist in your folly, I had a quick look and lo: > > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.0/1669.html > > The 'new behavior' is in fact the result of a thinko in a union > re-factoring. It'd be good to get that broken hack out of wherever it's > been pushed. It's not just us that produces buggy software it seems ;-) > > HTH, > > Michael. _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
