William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> 2.5.69-mm3 should suffice to test things now. If you can try that when
> you get back I'd be much obliged.
2.5.69-mm3 died in exactly the same way - the oops was identical.
I'm back to running mm2 without netfilter, to see how
stable it is.
Helge Hafting
On Thu, May 08 2003, Helge Hafting wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
> >2.5.69-mm3 should suffice to test things now. If you can try that when
> >you get back I'd be much obliged.
>
> 2.5.69-mm3 died in exactly the same way - the oops was identical.
> I'm back to running mm2 without netfilter, to see how
> stable it is.
See my mail to rusty, I'm seeing the same thing. Back out the changeset
that wli pasted here too, and it will work.
--
Jens Axboe
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 02:04:50PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, May 08 2003, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >
> > >2.5.69-mm3 should suffice to test things now. If you can try that when
> > >you get back I'd be much obliged.
> >
> > 2.5.69-mm3 died in exactly the same way - the oops was identical.
> > I'm back to running mm2 without netfilter, to see how
> > stable it is.
>
> See my mail to rusty, I'm seeing the same thing. Back out the changeset
> that wli pasted here too, and it will work.
>
Much fuzz and two rejects. Seems there is ongoing netfilter
work in mm3.
Helge Hafting
On Thu, May 08 2003, Helge Hafting wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 02:04:50PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08 2003, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > > William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> > >
> > > >2.5.69-mm3 should suffice to test things now. If you can try that when
> > > >you get back I'd be much obliged.
> > >
> > > 2.5.69-mm3 died in exactly the same way - the oops was identical.
> > > I'm back to running mm2 without netfilter, to see how
> > > stable it is.
> >
> > See my mail to rusty, I'm seeing the same thing. Back out the changeset
> > that wli pasted here too, and it will work.
> >
> Much fuzz and two rejects. Seems there is ongoing netfilter
> work in mm3.
akpm applied the patch rusty sent, you'd surely want to back that out
first.
dunno what else is in -mm, the patch reversed without incident on 2.5-bk
as of right now.
--
Jens Axboe
On Thu, May 08 2003, Helge Hafting wrote:
>>> 2.5.69-mm3 died in exactly the same way - the oops was identical.
>>> I'm back to running mm2 without netfilter, to see how
>>> stable it is.
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 02:04:50PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> See my mail to rusty, I'm seeing the same thing. Back out the changeset
>> that wli pasted here too, and it will work.
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 03:39:08PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Much fuzz and two rejects. Seems there is ongoing netfilter
> work in mm3.
This is fine for my purposes; we narrowed down the cause to the current
netfilter issue (and exonerated what I'd otherwise have to fix) so all
is well.
It sounds like the fix for the issue merged in -mm3 was incomplete. It
should get straightened out soon.
-- wli
On Thu, May 08 2003, Helge Hafting wrote:
>> Much fuzz and two rejects. Seems there is ongoing netfilter
>> work in mm3.
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 03:37:44PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> akpm applied the patch rusty sent, you'd surely want to back that out
> first.
> dunno what else is in -mm, the patch reversed without incident on 2.5-bk
> as of right now.
It looks like rusty's patch only caught one of two bugs of the same
flavor and davem cleaned up the second. It looks like we're in good
shape on both fronts from where I'm standing but we should probably
wait for all of the original bugreporters to get back to use to
declare success on all fronts.
-- wli
On Sat, May 10 2003, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thu, May 08 2003, Helge Hafting wrote:
> >> Much fuzz and two rejects. Seems there is ongoing netfilter
> >> work in mm3.
>
> On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 03:37:44PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > akpm applied the patch rusty sent, you'd surely want to back that out
> > first.
> > dunno what else is in -mm, the patch reversed without incident on 2.5-bk
> > as of right now.
>
> It looks like rusty's patch only caught one of two bugs of the same
> flavor and davem cleaned up the second. It looks like we're in good
> shape on both fronts from where I'm standing but we should probably
> wait for all of the original bugreporters to get back to use to
> declare success on all fronts.
As I wrote yesterday, bk-current has the fix from Davem that works for
me.
--
Jens Axboe