XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect
Hi,
it seems that a bug was backported into the latest 2.6.32 longterm stable kernel. Now the patch "XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect" needs to get backported to 2.6.32.
Who can help? Who is responsible?
Please CC me i'm not on list.
Signature · 7 lines
Greets, Stefan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list [email protected] http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 7 lines · Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
Hi,
it seems that a bug was backported into the latest 2.6.32 longterm stable kernel. Now the patch "XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect" needs to get backported to 2.6.32.
Who can help? Who is responsible?
For -stable releases no one really is. If you want to help you can backport it and send it to the stable mailinglist.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
it seems that a bug was backported into the latest 2.6.32 longterm stable kernel. Now the patch "XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect" needs to get backported to 2.6.32.
Who can help? Who is responsible?
For -stable releases no one really is. If you want to help you can backport it and send it to the stable mailinglist.
Sorry i can't. I'm not a kernel hacker. But i think a real bug / showstopper should be fixed in a longterm stable kernel.
Redhat seems to have fixed it on it's own:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642680
Sadly they haven't provided a patch.
Greets Stefan
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 2 lines · Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
Sorry i can't. I'm not a kernel hacker. But i think a real bug / showstopper should be fixed in a longterm stable kernel.
Linux 2.6.32 isn't really something supported by us. It's not just a very old codebase, but also one where a lot of the XFS code was pretty much in flux. If you want supported old releases work use one of the commercially supported one like RedHat or SuSE.
Quoted 2 lines
Redhat seems to have fixed it on it's own:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642680
I suspect the upstream commit you want is 081003fff467ea0e727f66d5d435b4f473a789b3, but I can't gurantee this actually applies to the 2.6.32 codebase.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Am 07.06.2011 15:34, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
Quoted 5 lines · Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
Linux 2.6.32 isn't really something supported by us. It's not just a very old codebase, but also one where a lot of the XFS code was pretty much in flux. If you want supported old releases work use one of the commercially supported one like RedHat or SuSE.
OK so my thought was totally wrong. I thought the longterm stable releases will still get bugfixed by SGI or whoever wrote the stuff. Sorry for that then. But what is then the idea of a longterm stable?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Redhat seems to have fixed it on it's own:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642680I suspect the upstream commit you want is
081003fff467ea0e727f66d5d435b4f473a789b3, but I can't gurantee this actually applies to the 2.6.32 codebase.
No it doesn't. I already tried to implement it into current 2.6.32.41 code.
Greets Stefan
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 9 lines · Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
Am 07.06.2011 15:34, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
Quoted 5 lines · Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
Linux 2.6.32 isn't really something supported by us. It's not just a very old codebase, but also one where a lot of the XFS code was pretty much in flux. If you want supported old releases work use one of the commercially supported one like RedHat or SuSE.
OK so my thought was totally wrong. I thought the longterm stable releases will still get bugfixed by SGI or whoever wrote the stuff. Sorry for that then. But what is then the idea of a longterm stable?
I have no idea what the idea is, but it's clearly not viable for normal kernel developers. Backporting code to age old releases and QAing it is a major effort, and people generally don't do it unless they are paid for it.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 4 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Linux 2.6.32 isn't really something supported by us. It's not just a very old codebase, but also one where a lot of the XFS code was pretty much in flux. If you want supported old releases work use one of the commercially supported one like RedHat or SuSE.
2.6.32 is also the kernel in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs