On Oct 7, 2013, at 16:47 , Jeffrey Altman wrote: > On 10/7/2013 10:19 AM, Stephan Wiesand wrote: >> >> On Oct 7, 2013, at 15:48 , Jeffrey Altman <jalt...@your-file-system.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The required changes for the Linux 3.11 kernel will be included as part >>> of the 1.6.5.1 release. This release will also include Linux specific >>> bug fixes and an AIX specific bug fix. >>> >>> The repository branch openafs-stable-1_6_5_x contains the proposed >>> changes. Unless something unexpected occurs the 1.6.5.1 release will be >>> announced within the next two weeks. >> >> All true, but it's very unlikely that any of those changes are required to >> compile a working module for that RHEL-6.4 kernel. And none of the Linux >> specific bug fixes headed for 1.6.5.1 affects RHEL6. > > It all depends upon what Red Hat backported.
It's possible in theory. But really unlikely. >> Either way, openafs modules for that kernel won't show up in any repository >> I know of before the source package is available on Red Hat's ftp server and >> rebuilt and released by the downstream projects. Which is unlikely to ever >> happen if this is indeed a hotfix only available to customers on special >> request. > > Agreed. The most recent kernel in that series for which a src.rpm has > been released by Red Hat is kernel-2.6.32-358.18.1.el6 which is dated 15 > August 2013 but was published on 27 August 2013. However, there are > bug reports in the RedHat bugzilla referencing 2.6.32-358.20.1.el6 > dating to mid-August. I found two of those, both against future RHEL6 minor releases and both mentioning 6.4.z - which is for customers who want to stay on 6.4 for a while but receive the critical fixes from those future releases backported to 6.4 after their release. Given that 6.4 still is the current minor release, "they released -358.20.1.el6" is a slight overstatement. None of all this is currently available publicly or to subscribers, even those with the EUS add-on, under normal circumstances. I believe we have no way to provide binary modules for such cases in general. Chances are the kABI-tracking kmods from ELRepo or SL would just work, as would force-loading the module built against -358.18.1.el6. But given the outcome of previous discussions regarding kmods on this list, all these just aren't safe and can't be recommended. Stephan_______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
