[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9e767819-9bbe-2181-521e-4d8ca28ca4f7@de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:54:46 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: mcgrof@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
bfields@...ldses.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
chainsaw@...too.org, christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
chuck.lever@...cle.com, davem@...emloft.net, dhowells@...hat.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, josh@...htriplett.org, keescook@...omium.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org,
lars.ellenberg@...bit.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
philipp.reisner@...bit.com, ravenexp@...il.com,
roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, serge@...lyn.com, slyfox@...too.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, markward@...ux.ibm.com,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used
seems to break linux bridge on s390x (bisected)
On 24.06.20 16:43, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:11:54PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> Does anyone have an idea why "umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used" breaks the
>> linux-bridge on s390?
>
> Are we even sure this is s390 specific and doesn't happen on other
> architectures with the same bridge setup?
Fair point. AFAIK nobody has tested this yet on x86.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists