Re: 2.6.32 cgroup regression

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Mike Galbraith
Date: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 10:56 pm

On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 13:10 -0700, Josh Hunt wrote:

Ouch.  Yeah, that commit is buggy, and never got fixed up in stable.
Reverting it will restore a slightly less buggy, but not very good
situation.  Getting the fork problems all fixed up took a while.
(quick fix vs revert didn't help your testcase)


Excellent timing you have.  I have a tree of backports, but I wasn't
counting this commit as a must have, merely highly desirable.  This
testcase showed that it's a needed fix.
  

Yeah, there are a _lot_ of fixes that should wander back to 32-stable.


No, the testcase works well.  Thanks.

	-Mike


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
2.6.32 cgroup regression, Josh Hunt, (Tue Aug 24, 1:10 pm)
Re: 2.6.32 cgroup regression, Mike Galbraith, (Tue Aug 24, 10:56 pm)
Re: 2.6.32 cgroup regression, Josh Hunt, (Wed Aug 25, 1:19 pm)
Re: 2.6.32 cgroup regression, Mike Galbraith, (Thu Aug 26, 12:51 am)
Re: 2.6.32 cgroup regression, Minoru Usui, (Tue Aug 31, 12:25 am)
Re: 2.6.32 cgroup regression, Mike Galbraith, (Fri Sep 3, 7:09 am)