On 2017. 03. 21. 3:40, Rick Macklem wrote: > Gergely Czuczy wrote: > [stuff snipped] >> Actually I want to test it, but you guys are so vehemently discussing >> it, I thought it would be better to do so, once you guys settled your >> analysis on the code. Also, me not having the problem occurring, I don't >> think would mean it's solved, since that would only mean, the codepath >> for my specific usecase works. There might be other things there as >> well, what I don't hit. > I hope by vehemently, you didn't find my comments as nasty. If they did > come out that way, it was not what I intended and I apologize. > >> Let me know which patch should I test, and I will see to it in the next >> couple of days, when I get the time to do it. > I've attached it here again and, yes, I would agree that the results you get > from testing are just another data point and not definitive. > (I'd say this statement is true of all testing of nontrivial code.) > > Thanks in advance for any testing you can do, rick > So, I've copied the patched kernel over, and apparently it's working properly. I'm not getting the error anymore. So far I've only did a quick test, should I do something more extensive, like build a couple of ports or something over NFS?Received on Thu Mar 23 2017 - 05:25:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:10 UTC