[Debian] Re: lenny updates

[Ola Lundqvist]

Hi Dann

I have to ask Kir about some of the things. Kir, please comment on the below.

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 01:42:10PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
[...]
> > > > #511165:
> > > > Patch exist for 2.6.24 and 2.6.26. Fix is available in
> > > > http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.26-openvz;a=commit;h=b5e1f74cee5bc2c45bdca53a7218fb8de89215dd
> > > > Not sure if this is an ABI breaker.
> > > 
> > > Seems straightforward, and shouldn't change the ABI. I'll commit it
> > > assuming my test build shows that.
> > 
> > This tells me that there is an easy way to check that. How is that done?
> > I assume some files are compared, but I can not find that in the debian directory (without building).
> 
> This is just based on looking at the patch - I don't see anything
> there that would change an exported symbol. Things to look for
> structure definition changes, or changes to exported function calls.
> Adding/removing includes can also have non-obvious effects.

Ok, I see.

> My test build did succeed, and this change has been committed.

Great.

> > > > #500876:
> > > > Fix available in:
> > > > http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.26-openvz;a=commit;h=777e8164ebf8a03e43511983cdec472f8691a8af
> > > > Problem is about to be verified. Regression tested without problems seen.
> > > 
> > > I couldn't reproduce this one (tried dual quad core intel server & a
> > > single quad core amd), but user claims this fixed the bug for me and I
> > > haven't seen any issues with this patch so its been committed.
> > 
> > I think you need to have a quad-core amd64 for this. But let us commit it
> > as it do not seem to hurt.
> 
> I tried on a quad-core/one socket amd64, but maybe it requires
> multiple sockets?

Or this is only occurs on selected boards. This kind of time critial faults can be
tricky.

> > > > #503097:
> > > > Reported as http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=930
> > > > Seems to be a duplicate of #500876 above.
> > > 
> > > Cool. If you think so, it might be good to have Carlos test one of
> > > these builds to verify:
> > >   http://people.debian.org/~dannf/bugs/500876/
> > 
> > Ok, I'll ask him at once.
> 
> Thanks!

Done now.

[...]
> come with a risk of regression, and its easier to regression test
> specific changes.
> 
> > > > #508773:
> > > > Patch available in http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1054
> > > > Fix in http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.24-openvz;a=commit;h=20bd90762d4df4a3c7c247b660c696bdd0a27709
> > > > Do not look like an ABI breaker to me.
> > > 
> > > Yep, definitely shouldn't break the ABI, and seems like a good
> > > candidate.
> > 
> > Good. Please tell if you want me to prepare some patch or check in something.
> 
> Patches that apply directly to kernel svn are certainly
> welcome. Normally, that should mean adding a changelog entry, a series
> file entry, and a new patch file.
> 
> This one is pretty trivial, so I'll go ahead and generate a changeset
> to commit - but it would be great if you could ensure that the
> snapshot builds get regression tested after they become available.

Ok, thanks. I'll promise to regression test soon after you tell me that the build
is complete.

> > > > #500145:
> > > > Forwarded to http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1143
> > > > Marked as dupliate of http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1067
> > > > Not solved yet.
> > > 
> > > ok
> > > 
> > > > #501985:
> > > > From: maximilian attems
> > > > the upstream nfs fixes are abi breakers and thus can't be integrated
> > > > at this point they will be for the first point release were abi
> > > > breaking will be allowed again.
> > > 
> > > What is the fix for this - does upstream openvz include it?
> > 
> > Yes it is found upstream. See the file
> > http://download.openvz.org/kernel/branches/2.6.26/current/patches/patch-chekhov.1-combined.gz
> > The current patch do not touch any nfs/ files and upstream does. The patch
> > now in use was not fully completed when it was incorporated by Maximilian.
> 
> I see - so we need to identify which additional changes are needed.
> http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.26-openvz;a=commitdiff;h=66ec7f7f493fb98e8baa6591e9225086ae640fb8
> http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.26-openvz;a=commitdiff;h=39bb1ee59237272cd20e1f8696cefbd6a787cfc8
> 
> Is this severe enough to fix in a stable release? If we consider this
> a regression from etch (since kernel-patch-openvz supplied this), than
> maybe so. Is the risk of regression low? Well - these patches would
> only get applied on openvz kernels which currently don't support nfs
> at all so, assuming these changes are nfs-specific, risk should be
> low.

This is where I need to ask Kir. Kir do you know the answer to this question?

[...]

Best regards,

// Ola

-- 
 --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ----
/  ola at inguza.com                    Annebergsslingan 37        \
|  opal at debian.org                   654 65 KARLSTAD            |
|  http://inguza.com/                Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9  /
 ---------------------------------------------------------------