On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:44 -0400, Neal Cardwell wrote:
Yes, exactly. 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 have
daef52bab1fd26e24e8e9578f8fb33ba1d0cb412 but not the
4648dc97af9d496218a05353b0e442b3dfa6aaab that fixes the resulting
issue with sacked_out going negative, and these lines you've flagged
are exactly the symptoms we'd expect because of that. The fix is
queued up for the -stable series already, so it should be in 3.2.11, I
presume. The fix is already in 3.3-rc7.
3.2.12 more probably, as 3.2.11 is a single build fix