Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Evolution] kernel 2.5 and evolution]]

[Ronald Kuetemeier <ronald kuetemeier com>]

On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 02:19, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Mika,
>
> > By the way, your patch is included in Debian unstable
> [liborbit0-0.5.17-5]:
>
>       Please get rid of this patch - it is an horrible, gross hack - and it
> should have a fairly nasty performance / stability impact on evo. [AFAIR] as it
> progressively starves it of file descriptors.
BS.

> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:23, Ronald Kuetemeier wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:40:45PM +0100, Joaquim Fellmann wrote:
> > > Wrong too.
> > > It seems to be Orbit assuming a kernel routine to return some value but
> > > receiving something else. 
> > > Actually it was a kernel bug (that got fixed) on which Orbit was
> > > relying.
> > > Problem is that Orbit didn't get fixed.
> >
> > Maybe you should read the thread on evolution-hackers,and then
> > contact some kernel hackers, Alan, Dave and Al come to mind. My patch
> > resets new 2.5 behavior for/in Orbit to 2.4 behavior. But the real
> > problem is within Gnome, so far I only hear from the Gnome/Orbit
> > maintainers it's the Kernel without any proof.  Just saying so is not
> > enough, I know it's kind of hard to find a problem in a few hundred
> > thousand kernel and Gnome/evolution source lines. Been there done
> > that.
>
>       Joaquim is/was entirely right; Ronald - we told you repeatedly that
> since it works perfectly on all flavours of Unix except some broken
Why are you making things up, nobody ever told me it was working on
other system. Repeatedly, _NOT_ once.
Here is a quote from Alan Cox and David S. Miller.
   From: Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>
   Date: 30 Oct 2002 23:59:35 +0000

   On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 21:37, Ronald Kuetemeier wrote:
   > What happens in 2.5 is the getpeername system call sets the
   > u.usock.sun_path to it's peer, while 2.4 leaves it empty. 
   
   Im suprised it changed at all. Is this a SOCK_STREAM or SOCK_DGRAM
   socket and is it the connecting or accepting end if so ?
   
The only think which may have changed, behavior wise, is the
path_lookup() call.  This was done during one of Al Viro's
cleanupsof the VFS so he'd need to be consulted if this is
causing problems.

Otherwise 2.4 and 2.5 AF_UNIX are identical.

So I was wrong and looked in the wrong place, even glanced over the bug
and didn't see it. 
Fine, but please don't make things up.
I pointed people to the thread so they could make a decision for them
selfs, I did not include the patch which forced people to read the
thread including your comments. So please stop making things up, your
attitude reflects deeply on Ximian.
Ronald


 


> version of linux-2.5, it's _clearly_ a 2.5 kernel bug. Since it seems
> you persist in your folly, I had a quick look and lo:
>
>       http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.0/1669.html
>
>       The 'new behavior' is in fact the result of a thinko in a union
> re-factoring. It'd be good to get that broken hack out of wherever it's
> been pushed. It's not just us that produces buggy software it seems ;-)
>
>       HTH,
>
>               Michael.