On 27/10/2015 15:45, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 26-10-2015 18:11, Pierre Labastie escreveu:
>> As noted in ticket #6931, one test (test/shell/lvcreate-large-raid.sh) hangs
>> forever and may even trash the system, which then needs a hard reboot.
>>
>> I've found the explanation, but really upstream is too "fedora-centric" (see
>> below why). In file test/lib/aux, there is this function (look at the 4 line
>> long comment):
>> ----------------
>> have_raid() {
>> test "$RAID" = shared -o "$RAID" = internal || {
>> echo "Raid is not built-in." >&2
>> return 1;
>> }
>> target_at_least dm-raid "$@"
>>
>> # some kernels have broken mdraid bitmaps, don't use them!
>> # may oops kernel, we know for sure all FC24 are currently broken
>> # in general any 4.1, 4.2 is likely useless unless patched
>> # hopefully 4.3 will be patched
>> case "$(uname -r)" in
>> 4.[123].*fc24*) return 1 ;;
>> esac
>> ---------------
>> The comment shows that mdraid is broken in kernels version 4.1 and 4.2, but
>> then, only fc24 kernels lead to non zero exit! Note that according to the
>> comment, any test using raid could be hanging too. I've only observed that
>> for
>> one test.
>>
>> Anyway, I tried linux-4.0.9 and linux-4.3-rc7, and the test passes on both.
>> Looks like 4.3 has been patched.
>> I'll change the book to warn against versions 4.1 and 4.2 of the kernel (in
>> both LVM and mdadm).
>
> Yes, good change for all users end developers.
>
> And I left one comment in the ticket.
>
> Thanks again for your deep investigation about these so problematic checks.
>
>
I've a question. I'd like to put the warning in an admonition, but I do not
know whether I should use "note", "caution", "warning", or something else. I'd
go for caution but maybe one of you knows better.
BTW, I tried linux-4.2.5 today, and it is patched too.
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
