From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:06:30 +0900 (JST)
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:01:56 +0100), Gabriel
> C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> > Should be the fix from http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7817
>
> I've resent the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:01:56 +0100), Gabriel C
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Greg KH schrieb:
> > On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 09:30:08PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >
> >> From: David Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:47:49 -0800
> >>
> >>
Greg KH schrieb:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 09:30:08PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>
>> From: David Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:47:49 -0800
>>
>>
>>> I think it's better to add the fix than withdraw this patch, since
>>> the original bug is a crash.
>>>
>>
Greg KH schrieb:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 09:30:08PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: David Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:47:49 -0800
I think it's better to add the fix than withdraw this patch, since
the original bug is a crash.
I completely agree.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:01:56 +0100), Gabriel C
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Greg KH schrieb:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 09:30:08PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: David Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:47:49 -0800
I think it's
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:06:30 +0900 (JST)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:01:56 +0100), Gabriel
C [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Should be the fix from http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7817
I've resent the patch to
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 09:30:08PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:47:49 -0800
>
> > I think it's better to add the fix than withdraw this patch, since
> > the original bug is a crash.
>
> I completely agree.
Great, can someone
From: David Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:47:49 -0800
> I think it's better to add the fix than withdraw this patch, since
> the original bug is a crash.
I completely agree.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
I expect this is the failure to join the all-nodes multicast group,
in which case the fix has already been posted to netdev. I
believe the router advertisements are sent to that, and if the
join failed, it wouldn't receive any of them.
I think it's better to add the fix than withdraw this patch,
Hi,
The patch titled "IPV4/IPV6: Fix inet{,6} device initialization order"
shipped in 2.6.19.2 appears to be the cause of this regression:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161907
Is this a known issue? Should this patch be dropped from -stable?
Thanks,
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from
Hi,
The patch titled IPV4/IPV6: Fix inet{,6} device initialization order
shipped in 2.6.19.2 appears to be the cause of this regression:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161907
Is this a known issue? Should this patch be dropped from -stable?
Thanks,
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this
I expect this is the failure to join the all-nodes multicast group,
in which case the fix has already been posted to netdev. I
believe the router advertisements are sent to that, and if the
join failed, it wouldn't receive any of them.
I think it's better to add the fix than withdraw this patch,
From: David Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:47:49 -0800
I think it's better to add the fix than withdraw this patch, since
the original bug is a crash.
I completely agree.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 09:30:08PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: David Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:47:49 -0800
I think it's better to add the fix than withdraw this patch, since
the original bug is a crash.
I completely agree.
Great, can someone forward the
14 matches
Mail list logo