> As far as I can tell, Greg Kroah-Hartman queued the fix for 4.9 and
> 4.11, and the fix is in mainline, too:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=20223f0f39ea9d31ece08f04ac79f8c4e8d98246
Oh, I see that now. That’s superb! Thanks.
On 06/21/2017 03:11 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> Yes, we will need to update the testcase in case of newer flags additions.
> But since the flags are currently defined within GLIBC not pulling from
> kernel header I think we will have more control over it.
But that doesn't really matter beca
On 21/06/2017 10:08, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 03:06 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21/06/2017 08:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> On 06/20/2017 10:53 PM, Stephen Bates wrote:
>
>> I've already sent this patch to Al twice (including a stable tag),
>> but it didn't
On 06/21/2017 03:06 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
>
> On 21/06/2017 08:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 06/20/2017 10:53 PM, Stephen Bates wrote:
> I've already sent this patch to Al twice (including a stable tag),
> but it didn't seem to make it anywhere.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have
On 21/06/2017 08:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/20/2017 10:53 PM, Stephen Bates wrote:
>>>
I've already sent this patch to Al twice (including a stable tag),
but it didn't seem to make it anywhere.
>>
>> Does anyone have ideas how we move this along? This is the missing link in
>>
On 06/20/2017 10:53 PM, Stephen Bates wrote:
>>
>>> I've already sent this patch to Al twice (including a stable tag),
>>> but it didn't seem to make it anywhere.
>
> Does anyone have ideas how we move this along? This is the missing link in
> allowing applications to request IO polling…
Is thi
>
>> I've already sent this patch to Al twice (including a stable tag),
>> but it didn't seem to make it anywhere.
Does anyone have ideas how we move this along? This is the missing link in
allowing applications to request IO polling…
Stephen
On 16/06/2017 03:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:52:25AM -0600, Jon Derrick wrote:
>> Can you apply the patch below to your kernel?
>
> I've already sent this patch to Al twice (including a stable tag),
> but it didn't seem to make it anywhere.
Right, thanks for the re
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:52:25AM -0600, Jon Derrick wrote:
> Can you apply the patch below to your kernel?
I've already sent this patch to Al twice (including a stable tag),
but it didn't seem to make it anywhere.
> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
> index c4f88af..f77eb22 100644
Hi Zanella,
On 06/15/2017 04:10 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> After the issue with LO_HI_LONG definition on x86_64-linux-gnu, I planed to
> add
> this patch to check the above patch for correct check for invalid flags (which
> would also have show this issue with LO_HI_LONG being used on
> p{
After the issue with LO_HI_LONG definition on x86_64-linux-gnu, I planed to add
this patch to check the above patch for correct check for invalid flags (which
would also have show this issue with LO_HI_LONG being used on p{read,write}v2).
However it seems to trigger what I think it is a kernel bu
11 matches
Mail list logo
