Re: Linux 2.2.19pre10

2001-02-13 Thread Christoph Rohland
Hi Alan, On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote: >> Yes, I understand that. But I never got any note that my fix is >> broken and I still do not understand what's the concern. > > Unless Im misreading the code the segment you poke at has > potentially been freed before it is written too. Oh yes I

Re: Linux 2.2.19pre10

2001-02-13 Thread Christoph Rohland
Hi Alan, On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote: >> No, I do not think that it's minor. We had to bring down running >> application servers to be able to start another one, because the >> new one couldn't create or attach the systemwide os-monitoring >> segment and thus refused to start. That's very

Re: Linux 2.2.19pre10

2001-02-13 Thread Alan Cox
> Yes, I understand that. But I never got any note that my fix is broken > and I still do not understand what's the concern. Unless Im misreading the code the segment you poke at has potentially been freed before it is written too. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linu

Re: Linux 2.2.19pre10

2001-02-13 Thread Alan Cox
> > Possibly but its a minor item that doesnt really matter anyway so leaving it > > is fine > > No, I do not think that it's minor. We had to bring down running > application servers to be able to start another one, because the new > one couldn't create or attach the systemwide os-monitoring > s

Re: Linux 2.2.19pre10

2001-02-13 Thread Christoph Rohland
Hi Alan, On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote: >> First, I'm glad I wasn't hallucinating, and that the mail did >> indeed get seen by someone. >> >> Second, instead of reverting, can't we simply move those two lines >> up a bit: > > Possibly but its a minor item that doesnt really matter anyway s

Re: Linux 2.2.19pre10:x!

2001-02-12 Thread Alan Cox
> Ah, but it does matter ! We break compatibility with other systems (and > our manpages, and possibly standards) if we don't mark the segment > IPC_PRIVATE upon removal - This being so midbogglingly critical a bug that nobody noticed until 2.2.18 and the bug existed since 1.2 or earlier. I thin

Re: Linux 2.2.19pre10

2001-02-12 Thread Alan Cox
> First, I'm glad I wasn't hallucinating, and that the mail did indeed get > seen by someone. > > Second, instead of reverting, can't we simply move those two lines up a > bit: Possibly but its a minor item that doesnt really matter anyway so leaving it is fine - To unsubscribe from this list: s

Linux 2.2.19pre10

2001-02-12 Thread Alan Cox
2.2.19pre10 o Update aic7xxx driver to 5.1.33 (Doug Ledford) o Revert shm change - its unsafe (Richard Nelson) o Update sunrpc code, add rpc ping congestion (Trond Myklebust) checks o Fix wrong kfree in cosa driver