"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>
> Hans Reiser writes:
> > Alan Cox wrote:
> >> [Ablert Cahalan]
>
> >>> In an __init function, have some code that will trigger the bug.
> >>> This can be used to disable Reiserfs if the compiler was bad.
> >>> Then the admin gets a printk() and the Reiserfs mount fa
Hans Reiser writes:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>> [Ablert Cahalan]
>>> In an __init function, have some code that will trigger the bug.
>>> This can be used to disable Reiserfs if the compiler was bad.
>>> Then the admin gets a printk() and the Reiserfs mount fails.
>>
>> Thats actually quite doable. I'll
Oh believe ,e I agree. But here we run into the dilbert principal and we
really should be sarter than the IT Diredtor that makes stupid decisions and overrides
thier admins with insane schedules that prevent a full reading of the docs. 8-(
Believe me, it's far more common a situation th
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > In an __init function, have some code that will trigger the bug.
> > > This can be used to disable Reiserfs if the compiler was bad.
> > > Then the admin gets a printk() and the Reiserfs mount fails.
> >
> > Thats actually quite
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > I was thinking boot time.
> > and if reiserfs is the root partition? You really want to make them reboot to
> > the old kernel and recompile rather than making them just recompile?
>
> I want to make sure they get a sane clear message telling them where to
> find the cor
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> and if reiserfs is the root partition? You really want to make them reboot to
> the old kernel and recompile rather than making them just recompile?
>
> Stop trying to blame something other than the compiler, it is ridiculous.
Blaming the compiler is one
> > I was thinking boot time.
> and if reiserfs is the root partition? You really want to make them reboot to
> the old kernel and recompile rather than making them just recompile?
I want to make sure they get a sane clear message telling them where to
find the correct compiler and that they did
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Thats actually quite doable. I'll see about dropping the test into -ac that
> > > way.
> > NO!! It should NOT fail at mount time, it should fail at compile time.
>
> I was thinking boot time.
and if reiserfs is the root partition? You really want to make them reb
> > Thats actually quite doable. I'll see about dropping the test into -ac that
> > way.
> NO!! It should NOT fail at mount time, it should fail at compile time.
I was thinking boot time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > No. There are *many* other compilers out there which are much *more* broken
> > then anything RedHat has recently shipped. Unfortunatly, there is no easy
> > way to accuratly test for such bugs (because once they can be boiled down to
> > a simple test they are very rapidly
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > In an __init function, have some code that will trigger the bug.
> > This can be used to disable Reiserfs if the compiler was bad.
> > Then the admin gets a printk() and the Reiserfs mount fails.
>
> Thats actually quite doable. I'll see about dropping the test into -ac tha
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > administrator that has worked in large multi hundred million dollar compani=
> > es where 1 hour of downtime =3D=3D $75,000 in lost income proactive prevent=
> > ion IS the right answer. If the gcc people need to compile with the .96 rh =
> > version then they can apply a re
> No. There are *many* other compilers out there which are much *more* broken
> then anything RedHat has recently shipped. Unfortunatly, there is no easy
> way to accuratly test for such bugs (because once they can be boiled down to
> a simple test they are very rapidly fixed, what's left is voodo
> In an __init function, have some code that will trigger the bug.
> This can be used to disable Reiserfs if the compiler was bad.
> Then the admin gets a printk() and the Reiserfs mount fails.
Thats actually quite doable. I'll see about dropping the test into -ac that
way.
-
To unsubscribe from
> administrator that has worked in large multi hundred million dollar compani=
> es where 1 hour of downtime =3D=3D $75,000 in lost income proactive prevent=
> ion IS the right answer. If the gcc people need to compile with the .96 rh =
> version then they can apply a removal patch hans provides i
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 08:50:13PM -0600, Brian Wolfe wrote:
[snip]
> From the debate raging here is what I gathered is acceptable
>
> make it blow up fataly and immediatly if it detects Red Hat + gcc
>2.96-red_hat_broken(forgot version num)
> make it provide a URL to get the patch to
Brian Wolfe writes:
> I hate to say it but I think Hans might have the right answer here.
> As an administrator that has worked in large multi hundred million
> dollar companies where 1 hour of downtime == $75,000 in lost income
...
> From the debate raging here is what I gathered is acceptable..
I hate to say it but I think Hans might have the right answer here. As an
administrator that has worked in large multi hundred million dollar companies where 1
hour of downtime == $75,000 in lost income proactive prevention IS the right answer.
If the gcc people need to compile with the
> > can bracket his code in 'if [ $TRUSTED = "y" ] ... fi', so if some driver-fs
> > fails with untrusted compilers it is just not selectable.
>
> What kind of crap is this?
> It is not the kernel's job to work around RedHat bugs.
The kernel actually works round gcc 2.7.2, egcs-1.1.2 and gcc-2.9
On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 00:57:45 -0800, David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>How about a simple patch to the top level makefile that checks the gcc
>version then prints a distinct message ..'this compiler hasn't been approved
>for compiling the kernel', sleeping for one second, then continuing on.
Thus spake J . A . Magallon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > How about a simple patch to the top level makefile that checks the gcc
> > version then prints a distinct message ..'this compiler hasn't been approved
> > for compiling the kernel', sleeping for one second, then continuing on. This
> > solutio
On 02.03 David Ford wrote:
> How about a simple patch to the top level makefile that checks the gcc
> version then prints a distinct message ..'this compiler hasn't been approved
> for compiling the kernel', sleeping for one second, then continuing on. This
> solution doesn't stop compiling and
How about a simple patch to the top level makefile that checks the gcc
version then prints a distinct message ..'this compiler hasn't been approved
for compiling the kernel', sleeping for one second, then continuing on. This
solution doesn't stop compiling and makes a visible indicator without fo
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> That said, my opinion is that bug reporting load is not as important as bug
> avoidance, but I understand your position has merit to it also.
If you do it, at least restrict it to 2.96.0. Maybe Red Hat will see the
light and release a fixed 2.96.1...
Ion
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > As it stands, there is no way to determine programatically whether
> > gcc-2.96 is broken or now. The only way to do it is to check the RPM
> > version -- which, needless to say, is a bit difficult to do from the
> > C code about to be compiled. So I can't really blame Hans
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 09:57:39PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
: > As it stands, there is no way to determine programatically whether
: > gcc-2.96 is broken or now. The only way to do it is to check the RPM
: > version -- which, needless to say, is a bit difficult to do from the
: > C code about to be
> As it stands, there is no way to determine programatically whether
> gcc-2.96 is broken or now. The only way to do it is to check the RPM
> version -- which, needless to say, is a bit difficult to do from the
> C code about to be compiled. So I can't really blame Hans if he decides
> to outlaw g
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:46:45 + (GMT), Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :It is the original one. I'll try with the -69:
>> :
>> With 2.96-69 the reiserfs seems to work well.
>> Sorry for the confusion, I forgot to upgrade the gcc on my machine.
>
> Excellent. Im just glad to kno
> : It is the original one. I'll try with the -69:
> :
> With 2.96-69 the reiserfs seems to work well.
> Sorry for the confusion, I forgot to upgrade the gcc on my machine.
Excellent. Im just glad to know its a fixed bug.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linu
Jan Kasprzak wrote:
: :
: : 2.96-69 should be ok (thats the one I've been using without trouble). The
: : original one with RH 7.0 off the CD does miscompile a few kernel things.
:
: It is the original one. I'll try with the -69:
:
With 2.96-69 the reiserfs seems to work well.
So
Alan Cox wrote:
: > Hans Reiser wrote:
: >: This is why our next patch will detect the use of gcc 2.96, and complain, in the
: >: reiserfs Makefile.
: >:
: > OK, thanks. It works with older compiler (altough I use gcc 2.96
: > for a long time for compiling various 2.[34] kernels without probl
> Hans Reiser wrote:
> : This is why our next patch will detect the use of gcc 2.96, and complain, in the
> : reiserfs Makefile.
> :
> OK, thanks. It works with older compiler (altough I use gcc 2.96
> for a long time for compiling various 2.[34] kernels without problem).
Ok which 2.96 com
> This is why our next patch will detect the use of gcc 2.96, and complain, in the
> reiserfs Makefile.
What makes you think its gcc 2.96 ?
If the person concerned can clarify what they built with (2.96-69 or
egcs-1.1.2 (kgcc)), that would be useful.
I've certainly done the Reiserfs testing I d
Hans Reiser wrote:
: This is why our next patch will detect the use of gcc 2.96, and complain, in the
: reiserfs Makefile.
:
OK, thanks. It works with older compiler (altough I use gcc 2.96
for a long time for compiling various 2.[34] kernels without problem).
-Yenya
--
\ Jan "Yenya" K
This is why our next patch will detect the use of gcc 2.96, and complain, in the
reiserfs Makefile.
Hans
Jan Kasprzak wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> with ReiserFS support in 2.4.1 I have decided to give it a try.
> I created a filesystem on a spare partition, mounted it as /mnt,
> and t
35 matches
Mail list logo
