Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Patch\s+1300\s+\&\s+rpm\s+issue\s+with\s+1\.3\.0\s*$/: 54 ]

Total 54 documents matching your query.

1. Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: "Kai Leibrandt" <k_leibrandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:55:26 +0200
Hi all, I just got the 2.4.20-19.9_XFS1.3.0.src.rpm from oss.sgi.com and after building, installing and rebooting I noticed the same issue with rpm that hit me with 2.4.20-18.9... Of course after add
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00268.html (8,496 bytes)

2. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:27:05 -0500 (CDT)
Boy, that's an annoying bug... it's somewhere in the guts of Red Hat's kernel + nptl patches + O_DIRECT + rpm. I think that Red Hat will eventually have a new version of RPM that works with this kern
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00269.html (9,460 bytes)

3. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:50:28 +0300
The good news is that the current rawhide kernel has commented out that patch (named 1140 there). Unfortunatley there is no changelog entry as to why and how this was done. I played a bit with rawhid
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00271.html (11,270 bytes)

4. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:25:09 -0500
Try using this change from the 2.4.22 tree http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+xfs/diffs/fs/xfs/linux/xfs_lrw.c@xxxxx?nav=index.html|src/|src/fs|src/fs/xfs|src/fs/xfs/linux|hist/fs/xfs/linux/xfs_lrw.c I th
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00272.html (11,865 bytes)

5. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:30:21 +0300
Thanks, I'll look into it. The old patch was doing more (or less) than the new do_generic_* stuff, e.g. it also did not call invalidate_inode_pages2. Have a look at the rewritten _nolock patch I ende
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00275.html (12,157 bytes)

6. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 17:23:27 +0300
This also bit me with the 20.9 kernel patched to XFS 1.3.0. It seems 100% reproducible. :( Why doesn't this show up with the binary kernels for 19.9? Or does it but nobody reported it yet? It also di
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00281.html (11,140 bytes)

7. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:58:44 -0500 (CDT)
I think it does show up in 19.9. For XFS 1.2.0, that was on a different underlying kernel - or have you merged 1.2.0 up to 2.4.20-19.9? Not many things use O_DIRECT, actually. And, well, it won't be
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00282.html (10,474 bytes)

8. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:51:31 +0200
Eric Sandeen schrieb: Hmm, can somebody explain what the patch 1300 problem is? I have built my own 2.4.20-20.7.XFS1.3.0 and 2.4.20-20.9.XFS1.3.0 rpms and I'm using the 20.7 version on RedHat 7.2 wit
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00283.html (10,378 bytes)

9. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:37:08 +0300
Yes, the atrpms kernels track latest RH errata and had (up to now) XFS 1.2.0. Hm, worth considering it for the 2.4.20 series (the actual errata kernels). Latest rawhide/severn kernels have removed th
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00284.html (12,282 bytes)

10. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 26 Aug 2003 10:44:04 -0500
Simon - the RH9 kernels, where we turned O_DIRECT back on -only- for xfs, together with the nptl patches in the RH9 kernel, seems to cause problems with RPM - even if the RPM db is not on xfs. FWIW,
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00285.html (10,940 bytes)

11. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:43:45 -0500
Yes, this only shows up with the nptl patch applied, and only the RH9 kernels apply that patch. The same srpm build for a RH7.x or RH8 system won't have the nptl patch applied. The problem appears to
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00286.html (11,149 bytes)

12. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 26 Aug 2003 10:56:59 -0500
Ah, but I'm sure in your latest errata kernel, patch 1300 was still in place, and this takes out O_DIRECT very early. yes, they have different O_DIRECT handling now, actually a fix for a security pro
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00287.html (11,178 bytes)

13. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:19:53 +0300
So using rpm-4.2, 4.1.1 or 4.0.5 should be fine (see: http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/Red-Hat-Linux/87/0/10430019/) That's true and makes sense. If rpm >= 4.2 does the job, I'd rather put a Require
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00288.html (12,706 bytes)

14. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: "Simon Matter" <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:12:40 +0200 (CEST)
Hmm, and this happens on all x86 platforms? I'm the maintainer of cyrus-imapd rpms and there was already a big surprise with nptl kernels in combination with db4. Interestingly the problem appeared
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00295.html (11,615 bytes)

15. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 26 Aug 2003 16:18:34 -0500
Argh, here's one thing that went wrong... my cscope database did not index fs/ext3/file.c, for some reason... so I did not modify it, and O_DIRECT was not getting turned off for ext3 - hence the prob
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00296.html (11,991 bytes)

16. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: "Simon Matter" <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 07:24:26 +0200 (CEST)
My question remains, how does the problem discussed here show up. I have installed 20.9.XFS1.3.0 on RedHat 9 with my nonnptl db4 package and couldn't find any problem using rpm. Simon
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00301.html (11,875 bytes)

17. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:12:57 +0300
I think (haven't rebuild rpm for some time), that db4 is not linked against, but has been embedded into rpm's sources. Try ldd on /bin/rpm, you'll find it depending on librpmdb-4.2.so, and not libdb
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00304.html (12,564 bytes)

18. RE: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: "Kai Leibrandt" <k_leibrandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:43:06 +0200
<SNIP> I agree totally, although some people may get thworn off by a kernel spec having a Requires: in it. Yes I will but I won't be able to get back to you with results until the weekend... But the
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00307.html (10,131 bytes)

19. Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: "Simon Matter" <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:10:46 +0200 (CEST)
Well, RH 7.2 is also widely used here and there is quite a big difference between 7.2 ... 9. On 7.2, rpm is statically linked. And then, if an application like rpm breaks with a certain kernel/files
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00317.html (13,271 bytes)

20. RE: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 (score: 1)
Author: "Kai Leibrandt" <k_leibrandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:26:36 +0200
That's just what I was thinking; is rpm only an indication that other apps might have issues as well? If so, how do we identify them and rectify the problems? In the kernel, or in the app? Kai.
/archives/xfs/2003-08/msg00319.html (10,185 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]
This search system is powered by Namazu