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

On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 02:19, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Mika,

By the way, your patch is included in Debian unstable

      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.


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
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

      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.


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:

      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 ;-)



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]