[05:46] <TheMuso> c
[05:46] <TheMuso> ugh
[09:37] <kraut> moin
[11:30] <_StefanS_> hi there
[11:30] <_StefanS_> BenC: ping?
[11:33] <_StefanS_> BenC: would you consider adding the port multiplier patches to the current 2.6.22 kernel? They greatly improve the experience with controllers that take advantage of multiple sata devices on one cable. I've been testing the patch(es) for Tejun Heo.
[11:33] <BenC> _StefanS_: not likely
[11:34] <_StefanS_> BenC: I know he's submitted them to inclusion in 2.6.23
[11:34] <_StefanS_> BenC: but it would be rather cool to have that support, given that many installation might be using cheap sata arrays
[11:34] <BenC> _StefanS_: then we'll get it for gutsy+1
[11:34] <_StefanS_> BenC: yes I know..
[11:34] <_StefanS_> BenC: but would be great to have it now :D
[11:35] <BenC> _StefanS_: But we have to take the chance that it may break things considering it hasn't gotten upstream testing :)
[11:35] <_StefanS_> BenC: well, yes..
[11:36] <_StefanS_> BenC: I find it very stable, but ofcourse the stuff requires some wider testing i imagine... atleast I tried :D
[11:36] <BenC> _StefanS_: np, I love to hear about stuff like this, and if it was the case of adding a "we have to have this" type feature, then maybe, but otherwise we tend to stick with stable code
[11:37] <_StefanS_> BenC: for me I see it as a competitive advantage, since more and more people are moving away from usb devices, and on to eSata. The current libata in stock 2.6.22 isn't really working with that.
[11:37] <_StefanS_> BenC: (for multiple devices I mean)
[11:38] <BenC> isn't working, or just isn't performing well?
[11:38] <_StefanS_> BenC: port multiplier is there, but doesn't recognize more than one disk on the cable. I guess the performance is about the same with or without the patches
[11:39] <_StefanS_> BenC: I imagine it was a cool feature just out of the box on ubuntu server for instance
[11:39] <BenC> _StefanS_: hmm, slightly different than I understood...can you send the patch to kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com for review?
[11:39] <_StefanS_> BenC: sure
[11:44] <_StefanS_> BenC: there you go.
[11:44] <BenC> _StefanS_: thanks
[11:47] <_StefanS_> BenC: my email is waiting approval before entering the list, just so you know it
[11:47] <BenC> _StefanS_: ah, ok
[11:48] <_StefanS_> BenC: yea, I wasn't subscribing to it ;)
[11:48] <BenC> it's very low volume, if you're interested :)
[11:48] <_StefanS_> BenC: well yes, I could probably push for stuff earlier in the process hehe
[11:52] <_StefanS_> BenC: there's a little thing with ipr.c and ipr.h when compiling with the patch applied, but tejun is going to fix that very soon. He's planning to release a patchset for the final 2.6.22 kernel soon
[03:29] <RAOF_> Is it possible for someone not on the kernel team (ie: me) to help with bug 120943
[03:35] <jbailey> Heya!  I notice that -8.15 has been uploaded without the hppa ftbfs fix that I sent to malone over a week ago.
[03:38] <jbailey> Is there something more I should do to make sure that ports patches go in?
[03:38] <jbailey> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/123178
[03:38] <zul> jbailey: i guess it was overlooked might want to ping amitk 
[03:38] <jbailey> Right, but I'm wondering if there's something I should do to keep it from getting overlooked.
[03:38] <zul> send the patch directly to the kernel-team mailing list
[03:39] <jbailey> The ports stuff is always going to be weird, since it's targets that the kernel team isn't expected to test.
[03:40] <jbailey> You mean as well as posting the bug?  Won't that just mean more noise, and then in a place where it can't be tracked?
[03:41] <zul> good point..
[03:42] <lamont> I think I might have git-tree abilities these days, I should check on that once BenC is bored.
[03:43] <jbailey> That would be nice.
[03:43] <jbailey> Then I'll just bug you. =)
[03:52] <amitk> jbailey: I had (still don't) no knowdlege of these changes. I will talk to kylem and try to put it into the next upload
[03:52] <jbailey> amitk: kylem is not involved with the Ubuntu hppa port.
[03:53] <amitk> jbailey: then who is?
[03:53] <jbailey> LaMont and I.
[03:54] <jbailey> kyle's doing upstream hppa kernel stuff, so he's still a reasonable person to ping for these, but IIRC he prefers to stay away from it in Ubuntu to avoid any work/non-work confusion around it.
[03:54] <jbailey> amitk: But in general, if filing a bug isn't the best way to make sure the kernel team sees a patch, what is?
[03:56] <amitk> jbailey: Besides filing a bug, it definitely helps sending email + patch to kernel-team ML. Someone is then bound to review and ack the patch
[03:57] <jbailey> Okay.  Doesn't filing a bug automatically email everyone, though?
[03:57] <jbailey> I would've thought that redundant.
[03:59] <amitk> jbailey: I currently have 1046 emails from bugs.launchpad.net in my mailbox. A majority of these aren't triaged yet. We do try to go over bugs that have a patch attached, but sometimes we might miss one.
[03:59] <amitk> jbailey: kernel-team ML is directed towards any patches that we are seriously proposing to incorporate into the next release
[04:00] <jbailey> 'kay.  Is there a launchpad account I can just subscribe to it, or should I just sent the same email to the mailing list?
[04:01] <jbailey> I'd prefer not to be subscribed to yet another mailing list that goes into an unread folder.
[04:02] <lamont> ii  git-core       1.1.3-1ubuntu1 content addressable filesystem
[04:02] <lamont> well.. that explains my pain.
[04:03] <amitk> you need to subscribe to the ML AFAIK.
[04:03] <jbailey> That seems a bit excessive.
[04:03] <amitk> lamont: I share your pain
[04:03] <lamont> jbailey: send the mail, I'll add you
[04:03] <lamont> to the unsubed but allowed list
[04:03] <jbailey> lamont: Thanks.
[04:04] <jbailey> Ah, handy. =)
[04:04] <TheMuso> c
[04:04] <TheMuso> ugh
[04:04] <lamont> mind you, replies may or may not go to you, depending on whether or not the responder includes you in the recipients....
[04:04] <jbailey> I'll be sure to indicate in the message that comments should be posted in the bug or I won't see them.
[04:05] <jbailey> lamont: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com ?
[04:09] <lamont> sounds right
[04:10] <amitk> jbailey: how about cc'ing the bug id. That way reply-all would collect all comments, right?
[04:10] <jbailey> Ah, interesting thought.  I haven't tried that before.  I'll try it when I send this one.
[04:13] <lamont> jbailey: 99% of the time, I actually catch the non-spam and forward it along.  when I recognize the sender, I add them to accepts.
[04:13] <lamont> and then there's that other 1% of the time... :(
[04:13] <jbailey> lamont: What, you're not using Gusty yet?
[04:13] <jbailey> weak. =)
[04:13] <lamont> dude.  hppa box
[04:13] <lamont> overrides file is managed in git, on bld-3.
[04:28] <lamont> amitk: so is the conversation here enough to get this patch in to 8.16? or should I send mail to the ML?
[04:59] <amitk> lamont: I have added it to my list of pending patches. I will push it to 8.17.
[05:21] <maswan> hey, this came up over in -mirrors, are there any (implemented) plans to get rid of the silly dmesg stuff like "TCP: Treason uncloaked!" and so?
[05:24] <Nafallo> maswan: I think the IPv6 one was much more weird :-)
[05:30] <maswan> the "IPv6: sending pkt_too_big to self" one?
[05:31] <maswan> yeah, that's also on my list of annoying messages that makes interesting stuff harder to see
[05:38] <Mithrandir> amitk: I presume you're aware your upload FTBFS?
[05:41] <amitk> mithrandir: yes. I am uploading a fix
[05:41] <Mithrandir> yay fixxxes
[05:41] <lamont> amitk: awesome
[05:42] <amitk> mithrandir: I forgot to update modules.ignore for 'blink'
[05:43] <zul> lol "EE: Missing modules (start begging for mercy)"
[05:45] <amitk> BenC: could you re-submit the kernel to the buildd?
[05:45] <BenC> amitk: yes, getting it now
[05:48] <BenC> amitk: uploaded
[05:49] <amitk> anybody who is waiting... go get a beer or something :)