From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030516 Mozilla Firebird/0.6 Description of problem: Recent source rpms of RedHat errata kernel have always looked the same for RH 7 and 9 with only one differente in the .spec file. Now, the 2.4.20-19.x package contains a different patch in the source rpm. While building updated XFS enabled RPMs of the 2.4.20-19.x kernel rpms, I diffed both source rpms kernel-2.4.20-19.7.src.rpm and kernel-2.4.20-19.9.src.rpm and it looked like this: [simix@sup simix]$ diff -r kernel-2.4.20-19.7.src kernel-2.4.20-19.9.src diff -r kernel-2.4.20-19.7.src/kernel-2.4.spec kernel-2.4.20-19.9.src/kernel-2.4.spec 24c24 < %define release 19.7 --- > %define release 19.9 34,35c34,35 < #define nptlarchs %{all_x86} < %define nptlarchs noarch --- > %define nptlarchs %{all_x86} > #define nptlarchs noarch diff -r kernel-2.4.20-19.7.src/linux-2.4.20-rmap-updates.patch kernel-2.4.20-19.9.src/linux-2.4.20-rmap-updates.patch 403c403 < + ret += try_to_reclaim_buffers(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask); --- > + try_to_reclaim_buffers(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask); I'm afraid kernel-2.4.20-19.9.src/linux-2.4.20-rmap-updates.patch has a wrong line 403. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): kernel-2.4.20-19.9 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. See Description 2. 3. Actual Results: See Description Expected Results: See Description Additional info: See Description
the rmap patch should indeed be the same in 7 and 9 however, since the rmap patch depends on some nptl patches I don't think it is actually applied for the RHL7 errata kernel ...
To mee it looks like the wrong patch, the one from 9, was then applied to the 9 kernel. This is from the patch applied with the 9 kernel, which looks wrong to me: @@ -850,6 +875,7 @@ static int do_try_to_free_pages(unsigned ret += rebalance_inactive(gfp_mask, 100); ret += shrink_dcache_memory(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask); ret += shrink_icache_memory(1, gfp_mask); + try_to_reclaim_buffers(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask); // ret += shrink_other_caches( DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask); #ifdef CONFIG_QUOTA ret += shrink_dqcache_memory(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask);
the rhl9 code is correct. this is not a problem because the patch is only applied for RHL9 anyway.