On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 13:03 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:33:09PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 08:59 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > I've found that the problem was backported into the stable stream since > > > I cannot reproduce the issue with 2.6.26 but I can with 2.6.26.5. This > > > is quite useful since there are only 3 relevant looking changesets in > > > that range. I will bisect between these before confirming the culprit on > > > mainline. > > Could you double-check that this is reproduceable with this commit > applied, and not reproduceable when it's not? I've reproduced with exactly commit f41f741838480aeaa3a189cff6e210503cf9c42d on trunk and am now running 2e96d2867245668dbdb973729288cf69b9fafa66 which is the changeset immediately before. > I suppose it's not impossible that this could be triggering the problem > in some very roundabout way, but it seems a bit out of left field--so I > wonder whether one of the bisection points could have gotten marked good > when it should have been bad, or vice-versa. It's possible, the good case is naturally quite hard to establish with 100% certainty. I declared v2.6.26 OK after an uptime of 4 days and 19 hours, compared with failure normally within 1-2 days. It's possible I was premature in doing so. I'll run 2e96d2867 for at least a full week before reporting back. Ian. -- Ian Campbell Unix is mature OS, windows is still in diapers and they smell badly. -- Rafael Skodlar
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
