On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 03:21:25AM -0000, Tim Gardner wrote:
> @Steve - http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/13/392 indicates that the above
> commit works fine with 2.6.24. Arnaud said he had trouble with 2.6.25.
@Tim - while that's true (he also claims that his mangling
works fine with 2.6.22), note that the original patch reported in http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/21/449 for this bug was from the -stable
2.6.24.4 thread starting at http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/21/447; it's not
exactly clear *which* 2.6.24 kernel Arnaud tried his mangling against
when he went back to look to see where the regression was introduced.
What I'd really like is a testcase that triggers the original bug, and
then we could work from there, but I expect we're not going to get that.
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 03:21:25AM -0000, Tim Gardner wrote: lkml.org/ lkml/2008/ 5/13/392 indicates that the above
> @Steve - http://
> commit works fine with 2.6.24. Arnaud said he had trouble with 2.6.25.
@Tim - while that's true (he also claims that his mangling lkml.org/ lkml/2008/ 3/21/449 for this bug was from the -stable lkml.org/ lkml/2008/ 3/21/447; it's not
works fine with 2.6.22), note that the original patch reported in
http://
2.6.24.4 thread starting at http://
exactly clear *which* 2.6.24 kernel Arnaud tried his mangling against
when he went back to look to see where the regression was introduced.
What I'd really like is a testcase that triggers the original bug, and
then we could work from there, but I expect we're not going to get that.
-- NxNW.org/ ~steve/
Steve Beattie
<email address hidden>
http://