Hi all,
I have what might be a foolish question about patching packages. I am
not sure exactly how to phrase the question, so please follow up if it
seems as though I'm not being clear.
I was looking at this bug which my machines are currently experiencing:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Keith Keller
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have what might be a foolish question about patching packages. I am
> not sure exactly how to phrase the question, so please follow up if it
> seems as though I'm not being clear.
>
> I was looking at this bug which my machines a
On 2013-03-07, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
> You may want to check this out:
>
> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=6087
>
> My understanding is that "There is no side effect other than the load.
> There are not performance issues with the ailds behaving like this."
> Is this not the case ?
As far as I c
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Keith Keller
wrote:
> On 2013-03-07, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>>
>> You may want to check this out:
>>
>> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=6087
>>
>> My understanding is that "There is no side effect other than the load.
>> There are not performance issues with the aild
On 2013-03-07, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
> I thought about applying the patch to the centosplus kernel but
> decided not to bother because it looked like a "non-issue". But it you
> think it's worth the fix, that can be done. It will be even better if
> you supply the actual patch for the CentOS kernel.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Keith Keller
wrote:
> On 2013-03-07, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>>
>> I thought about applying the patch to the centosplus kernel but
>> decided not to bother because it looked like a "non-issue". But it you
>> think it's worth the fix, that can be done. It will be even bet
On 2013-03-08, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
> I looked at the patch again -- it was apparently not for the 6.3
> kernel and I was not 100% sure about applying it at that time. But now
> with the 6.4 kernel, it cleanly applies.
>
> While not serious, some users are finding this bug to be problematic
> when
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Keith Keller
wrote:
> On 2013-03-08, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>>
>> I looked at the patch again -- it was apparently not for the 6.3
>> kernel and I was not 100% sure about applying it at that time. But now
>> with the 6.4 kernel, it cleanly applies.
>>
>> While not serio
On 2013-03-08, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
> The only place the plus kernels are "documented" with up-to-date info
> is the CentOS bug tracker:
>
> CentOS-6: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586
> CentOS-5: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4100
That's perfect. It seems completely reasonable to sugg
On 2013-03-08, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
> The only place the plus kernels are "documented" with up-to-date info
> is the CentOS bug tracker:
>
> CentOS-6: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586
At least for CentOS 6 it looks like the new centosplus kernel is out.
Thanks Akemi! I have it running on a
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Keith Keller
wrote:
> On 2013-03-08, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>>
>> The only place the plus kernels are "documented" with up-to-date info
>> is the CentOS bug tracker:
>>
>> CentOS-6: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586
>
> At least for CentOS 6 it looks like the ne
Keith Keller wrote:
> I was looking at this bug which my machines are currently experiencing:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883905
>
> The proposed patch is literally one new line in the XFS codebase. So
> since the patch is so straightforward, I had a crazy idea that I would
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
