Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:33:05 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.16-rc4: known regressions |
| |
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@suse.de> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:51:01AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 17:02 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > If you revert this one patch, on top of a clean 2.6.16-rc4, do things > > > start working for you again? > > > > Okey dokey, bisecting with mrproper took little longer than expected but > > I found the bad changeset:
Thanks - it helps heaps.
> > 033b96fd30db52a710d97b06f87d16fc59fee0f1 is first bad commit > > diff-tree 033b96fd30db52a710d97b06f87d16fc59fee0f1 (from 0f76e5acf9dc788e664056dda1e461f0bec93948) > > Author: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@suse.de> > > Date: Fri Nov 11 06:09:55 2005 +0100 > > > > [PATCH] remove mount/umount uevents from superblock handling > > Upgrade HAL, it's too old for that kernel. >
We broke back-compatibility. The changelog _failed to tell us_ that we were breaking back-compatibility. The patch wouldn't have been applied if we'd been told that. At least, not without a lot of careful thought.
The fact that the changelog failed to tell us this makes one suspect that the breakage was inadvertent.
So no, upgrading HAL is not a good answer. Please fix the kernel.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |