Here goes the second release candidate for v2.4.32.
The most significant changes are v2.6 backports of IPv4/IPv6 bugfixes, and a USB OHCI regression introduced during v2.4.28 which could lead to crashes on SMP kernels.
Summary of changes from v2.4.32-rc1 to v2.4.32-rc2 ============================================
Aleksey Gorelov: asus vt8235 router buggy bios workaround
Alexey Kuznetsov: [TCP]: Don't over-clamp window in tcp_clamp_window()
Andrew Morton: loadkeys requires root priviledges
Dan Aloni: fix memory leak in sd_mod.o
Denis Lukianov: [MCAST]: Fix MCAST_EXCLUDE line dupes
Herbert Xu: Clear stale pred_flags when snd_wnd change
Horms: [IPVS]: Add netdev and me as maintainer contacts Fix infinite loop in udp_v6_get_port()
Using it to assemble and build 2.4.31-hf7 on athlon-SMP, and everything is fine so far. Now building it on sparc64-SMP and alpha. Marcelo, will you release this one as 2.4.32, or do you still have patches to be added ?
> Using it to assemble and build 2.4.31-hf7 on athlon-SMP, and everything > is fine so far. Now building it on sparc64-SMP and alpha. Marcelo, will > you release this one as 2.4.32, or do you still have patches to be added ?
> Using it to assemble and build 2.4.31-hf7 on athlon-SMP, and everything > is fine so far. Now building it on sparc64-SMP and alpha. Marcelo, will > you release this one as 2.4.32, or do you still have patches to be added ?
Hi Willy,
There is nothing else pending for v2.4.32 on my part.
> There is nothing else pending for v2.4.32 on my part.
> Will wait a couple of days and tag it as v2.4.32.
I'm checking on some IPVS related code "inconsistency" regarding the latest patches sent by Julian and a netfilter reference counting issue on SMP. Could you hold off until Sunday with the release, please. If I don't report back by then with either a bug report or bugfix, release it ;).
Willy, if you have time, could you check your non-i386 boxes with a 2.95.x compiled 2.4.x kernel, with IPVS enabled? Also I checked back with your hf7 series patches and I should like to note that the IPVS related patches have been merged upstream with Marcelo for 2.4.32-rc2.
Thanks guys, Roberto Nibali, ratz -- echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq' | dc - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:00:29PM +0100, Roberto Nibali wrote: > Marcelo, Willy,
> > There is nothing else pending for v2.4.32 on my part.
> > Will wait a couple of days and tag it as v2.4.32.
> I'm checking on some IPVS related code "inconsistency" regarding the > latest patches sent by Julian and a netfilter reference counting issue > on SMP. Could you hold off until Sunday with the release, please. If I > don't report back by then with either a bug report or bugfix, release it ;).
> Willy, if you have time, could you check your non-i386 boxes with a > 2.95.x compiled 2.4.x kernel, with IPVS enabled?
Yes, no problem, but you'll have to tell me what to test ! (a config or script will save me some time). I have a Sun Ultra60 (ultrasparc SMP) which matches your description. I just have a doubt about gcc-2.95 availability on this box, I know I have a 3.3.6, do you think that the problem is gcc-related (too strong optimization or de-inlining, etc) ?
> Also I checked back > with your hf7 series patches and I should like to note that the IPVS > related patches have been merged upstream with Marcelo for 2.4.32-rc2.
Yes, the patches in hf7 are the same as in 2.4.32-rc2. If you want to try without, you can download the -split.tgz archive, they're all there.
Please keep us informed when you have more info.
> Thanks guys, > Roberto Nibali, ratz
Cheers, Willy
> -- > echo > '[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq' | dc
>>Willy, if you have time, could you check your non-i386 boxes with a >>2.95.x compiled 2.4.x kernel, with IPVS enabled?
> Yes, no problem, but you'll have to tell me what to test ! (a config > or script will save me some time). I have a Sun Ultra60 (ultrasparc SMP) > which matches your description. I just have a doubt about gcc-2.95 > availability on this box, I know I have a 3.3.6, do you think that the > problem is gcc-related (too strong optimization or de-inlining, etc) ?
At least following should be set, the rest you can leave to your gusto:
One issue is a possible C99'ism in the last IPVS patch. If you find time, please have a 2.95.x compiler installed.
Another thing that could fail is if you additionally set
CONFIG_ACPI_FAN=m
and compile with CFLAGS="-g -ggdb"
> Please keep us informed when you have more info.
I will, and I will get more details, as time permits. My beef with the IPVS code seems to be wrong, the code works as expected so far. I'm stress-testing it though until Sunday on a 4GB Dual P4 Xeon with HT combo.
Best regards, Roberto Nibali, ratz -- ------------------------------------------------------------- addr://Kasinostrasse 30, CH-5001 Aarau tel://++41 62 823 9355 http://www.terreactive.com fax://++41 62 823 9356 ------------------------------------------------------------- terreActive AG Wir sichern Ihren Erfolg ------------------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:02:39PM +0100, Roberto Nibali wrote: > Bonjour Willy,
> >>Willy, if you have time, could you check your non-i386 boxes with a > >>2.95.x compiled 2.4.x kernel, with IPVS enabled?
> > Yes, no problem, but you'll have to tell me what to test ! (a config > > or script will save me some time). I have a Sun Ultra60 (ultrasparc SMP) > > which matches your description. I just have a doubt about gcc-2.95 > > availability on this box, I know I have a 3.3.6, do you think that the > > problem is gcc-related (too strong optimization or de-inlining, etc) ?
> At least following should be set, the rest you can leave to your gusto:
> One issue is a possible C99'ism in the last IPVS patch. If you find > time, please have a 2.95.x compiler installed.
You mean that it's a build issue ? I first thought that you got erroneous behaviour.
> Another thing that could fail is if you additionally set
> CONFIG_ACPI_FAN=m
> and compile with CFLAGS="-g -ggdb"
will test too
> > Please keep us informed when you have more info.
> I will, and I will get more details, as time permits. My beef with the > IPVS code seems to be wrong, the code works as expected so far. I'm > stress-testing it though until Sunday on a 4GB Dual P4 Xeon with HT combo.
How could I stress it ? what ipvs config, what type of traffic ? I'm used to stress-test firewalls and load-balancers, but there is a wide choice of possibilities, and all cannot be explored in a short timeframe.
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:02:39PM +0100, Roberto Nibali wrote: > Bonjour Willy,
> >>Willy, if you have time, could you check your non-i386 boxes with a > >>2.95.x compiled 2.4.x kernel, with IPVS enabled?
> > Yes, no problem, but you'll have to tell me what to test ! (a config > > or script will save me some time). I have a Sun Ultra60 (ultrasparc SMP) > > which matches your description. I just have a doubt about gcc-2.95 > > availability on this box, I know I have a 3.3.6, do you think that the > > problem is gcc-related (too strong optimization or de-inlining, etc) ?
> At least following should be set, the rest you can leave to your gusto:
> One issue is a possible C99'ism in the last IPVS patch. If you find > time, please have a 2.95.x compiler installed.
I discovered that gcc-2.95.4 cannot compile kernel on sparc64 anymore :-( I even wonder if it ever had been able to, because it does not know about the -mmedlow option. I removed it to check further, but then ld segfaults complaining that v8plus objects are not compatible with v9 output. Retrying with 3.3.5 so...
> Another thing that could fail is if you additionally set
> CONFIG_ACPI_FAN=m
> and compile with CFLAGS="-g -ggdb"
I bet you guessed it gets ignored too :-) But I could test this on my dual-athlon with gcc-2.95 if it is of any interest.
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:02:39PM +0100, Roberto Nibali wrote: > Bonjour Willy,
> >>Willy, if you have time, could you check your non-i386 boxes with a > >>2.95.x compiled 2.4.x kernel, with IPVS enabled?
> > Yes, no problem, but you'll have to tell me what to test ! (a config > > or script will save me some time). I have a Sun Ultra60 (ultrasparc SMP) > > which matches your description. I just have a doubt about gcc-2.95 > > availability on this box, I know I have a 3.3.6, do you think that the > > problem is gcc-related (too strong optimization or de-inlining, etc) ?
> At least following should be set, the rest you can leave to your gusto:
> One issue is a possible C99'ism in the last IPVS patch. If you find > time, please have a 2.95.x compiler installed.
> Another thing that could fail is if you additionally set
> CONFIG_ACPI_FAN=m
> and compile with CFLAGS="-g -ggdb"
> > Please keep us informed when you have more info.
> I will, and I will get more details, as time permits. My beef with the > IPVS code seems to be wrong, the code works as expected so far. I'm > stress-testing it though until Sunday on a 4GB Dual P4 Xeon with HT combo.
Well, finally built on sparc64-smp with gcc-3.3.5 (minus CONFIG_ACPI_*) and on athlon-smp with gcc-2.95.3. So if you want me to do some tests, it will be possible.
