On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:38:08AM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:21:18AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:23:37PM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> > > Yes, that seems to have made it stop complaining about the IDE path.
> > 
> > Good, thanks for testing. It would be great if you left it running for
> > a couple of days like this to see whether there aren't any other issues
> > with the patch. I'll send it with a proper description to Dave soonish
> > since this is a real bug.
> 
> It has been up 22 hours now without breaking.

Good.

> I suppose you're worried about the old command being used after it
> gets reused.

Nah, we clear the old command before reusing it and when the request is
done, it gets freed, AFAICT, but...

> Would it help to bisect the regression to see how it used to work?
> That would let us know how many stable kernels to patch, too.

backporting it to -stable is a good point. I'll add the proper tagging
to the patch.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.