Another slip in the FC6 schedule

[Gene Heskett]

Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 12:45:25AM +0200, Alfredo Ferrari wrote:
>  
>  > I really appreciated. Knowing that the bug was already there in the 
>  > previous kernels makes things somewhat better. Despite our 1k partitions
>  > are often under heavy loads, apparently we never met it. Also knowing
>  > a crash rather than a filesystem corruption would occur is somewhat
>  > reassuring (in a relative sense of course)
>  > 
>  > Obviously I am perfectly aware that you have a lot of work (and you are 
>  > always answering on these list), sorry for my screaming, but I felt
>  > scared by the perspective of corrupting whole filesystems.
> 
> The length of time between now and the next update shouldn't be as long
> as the previous one.  Right now I'm killing off some of the low-hanging
> fruit bugs that there are already patches for or easy fixes, as well as
> trying to root cause a number of problems that seem to have bitten several
> users with this update.
> 
> Most noticable so far:
> - There seems to be some oddness in SATA (ata_piix only maybe?) with timeouts.
> - Upgrades to RAID5 are broken. (This needs an mkinitrd update).
> - Xen is broken (Needs userspace update).
> 
> Despite this, we seem to be making some progress at least.
> Yesterday there were 889 open FC5 kernel bugs.
> That's down to 836 right now.  Still ridiculously high, but it's
> getting there, slowly. And this is one of those updates that's
> definitly fixing more than its broken so far :)
> 
> The tough part has been weeding out all the stale old bugs that got
> migrated over from FC4 from the persistent bugs. Yesterdays mass NEEDINFO
> should help to sort those out. On Nov 1st if any of those are still NEEDINFO
> I'll close them.
> 
> 	Dave
> 
I hate to sound stupid Dave, but what utility will tell us if the 
partition being inspected is a 1k/block partition?

We'd like to know if we are vulnerable to this one.

-- 
Cheers, Gene