Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 12:45:25AM +0200, Alfredo Ferrari wrote:
> I really appreciated. Knowing that the bug was already there in the
> previous kernels makes things somewhat better. Despite our 1k partitions
> are often under heavy loads, apparently we never met it. Also knowing
> a crash rather than a filesystem corruption would occur is somewhat
> reassuring (in a relative sense of course)
>
> Obviously I am perfectly aware that you have a lot of work (and you are
> always answering on these list), sorry for my screaming, but I felt
> scared by the perspective of corrupting whole filesystems.
The length of time between now and the next update shouldn't be as long
as the previous one. Right now I'm killing off some of the low-hanging
fruit bugs that there are already patches for or easy fixes, as well as
trying to root cause a number of problems that seem to have bitten several
users with this update.
Most noticable so far:
- There seems to be some oddness in SATA (ata_piix only maybe?) with timeouts.
- Upgrades to RAID5 are broken. (This needs an mkinitrd update).
- Xen is broken (Needs userspace update).
Despite this, we seem to be making some progress at least.
Yesterday there were 889 open FC5 kernel bugs.
That's down to 836 right now. Still ridiculously high, but it's
getting there, slowly. And this is one of those updates that's
definitly fixing more than its broken so far :)
The tough part has been weeding out all the stale old bugs that got
migrated over from FC4 from the persistent bugs. Yesterdays mass NEEDINFO
should help to sort those out. On Nov 1st if any of those are still NEEDINFO
I'll close them.
Dave
I hate to sound stupid Dave, but what utility will tell us if the
partition being inspected is a 1k/block partition?
We'd like to know if we are vulnerable to this one.
--
Cheers, Gene
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
