On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:08:24PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > 10|852 /tset/LSB.os/mfiles/msync_P/T.msync_P 22:58:49|TC Start, scenario
> > ref 858-0
> > FSG internal testing showed that Fedora Core 5's 2.6.18 kernel does not
> > fail in the same way. I believe I've traced it to a backpor
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:25:22PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-19 20:30]:
> > why not wait for the fix and backport it?!
>
> Well, have you seen the discussion on lkml in which people are
> basically tapping in the dark? I hope there'll be a c
* maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-19 20:30]:
> why not wait for the fix and backport it?!
Well, have you seen the discussion on lkml in which people are
basically tapping in the dark? I hope there'll be a clean fix
in a few days but...
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:08:24PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
> So it seems that the patches needed for msync() conformance we applied
> from 2.6.19 to our 2.6.18 cause filesystem corruption, see the current
> discussion on this on lkml. From what I understand it, plain 2.6.18
> is not LSB
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 17:08 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> So it seems that the patches needed for msync() conformance we applied
> from 2.6.19 to our 2.6.18 cause filesystem corruption, see the current
> discussion on this on lkml. From what I understand it, plain 2.6.18
> is not LSB 3.1 confor
* Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-20 19:17]:
> >From a recent run of the LSB 3.1 tests:
>
> 10|852 /tset/LSB.os/mfiles/msync_P/T.msync_P 22:58:49|TC Start, scenario ref
> 858-0
>
> FSG internal testing showed that Fedora Core 5's 2.6.18 kernel does not
> fail in the same way. I believ
6 matches
Mail list logo
