On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:I'm sorry, I have no idea why this fix isn't going upstream. I tested the patch and it's completely fine with regards to kmemcheck. And the patch it fixes was already upstream so I don't see what's stopping it from going back in + the fix. So the question is if this should go in now, or whether it should wait till 2.6.26. In either case, the regression itself was solved by the means of a revert, and that's quite a long time ago, so the current kernel should be fine in this regard, though I think the original patch fixed some errors on its own. Ming Lin, will you resubmit the original patch plus the fix for re-inclusion in mainline? There's no point in having this regression entry around when it has been fixed by either/both the revert or/and the extra "fix" patch. Thanks! :-) Vegard -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036 --
| Sunil Naidu | Re: Linux 2.6.20-rc6 |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: init's children list is long and slows reaping children. |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
git: | |
