[03:46] <Kano> hi, 2.6.24 seems to use pv_cpu_ops as gpl only, that breaks fglrx
[03:48] <Kano> i guess paravirt
[05:12] <Kano> also i need a fix for aufs
[05:12] <Kano> best add it to lum
[05:15] <Kano> sed -i 's/CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y/# CONFIG_PARAVIRT is not set/;s/CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST=y/# CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST is not set/' debian/config/i386/config debian/config/amd64/config
[05:15] <Kano> thats needed when paravirt is not changed
[07:41] <kraut> moin
[13:52] <Kano> hi, hardy lum is still on -0, but it should be -1
[13:53] <Kano> how about disabling paravirt(guest) to let 3d drivers compile?
[13:53] <rtg> Kano: bug pkl. He's working on it right now.
[13:54] <Kano> pkl?
[13:54] <rtg> Philip Lougher
[13:54] <Kano> nickname
[13:55] <rtg> hmm, I guess he's not on this channel. hold on...
[14:00] <amitk> Kano: is this a typical fglrx problem?
[14:00] <Kano> a typical GPL only problem
[14:00] <Kano> some functions are exported gpl only
[14:01] <Kano> when paravirt is enabled
[14:01] <amitk> paravirt is important for Ubuntu
[14:02] <amitk> could you list the specific functions that are gpl only?
[14:02] <Kano> then tell linus to remove gpl only ;)
[14:03] <amitk> send an email to kernel-team@lists.canonical.com with you proposal so that everybody can track the problem
[14:03] <Kano> FATAL: modpost: GPL-incompatible module fglrx.ko uses GPL-only symbol 'pv_cpu_ops'
[14:03] <Kano> i am sure you can compile your own kernel...
[14:04] <Kano> you dont need a ati card to compile the module
[14:04] <amitk> and why does fglrx use operations from paravirts?
[14:04] <Kano> because it is enabled
[14:05] <Kano> a similar problem was with 2.6.21
[14:05] <amitk> Kano: to me this looks like a problem with fglrx, not Ubuntu. IMHO, you should be talking to ATI.
[14:05] <Kano> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=102652
[14:05] <Kano> not only fglrx, also nvidia
[14:05] <Kano> all non gpl drivers
[14:06] <amitk> have you tried filing bugs with these drivers?
[14:06] <Kano> This problem can not be worked around in the NVIDIA Linux graphics driver.
[14:06] <Kano> can you read this
[14:08] <amitk> It says in that link that Nvidia will fix their driver in future releases
[14:08] <amitk> just ask ATI to do the same
[14:08] <Kano> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg229455.html
[14:08] <Kano> maybe it is already fixed,but not in your git tree
[14:12] <amitk> Kano: rtg is syncing to the latest 2.6.24 tree 2-3 times a week. So we shouldn't be far behind.
[14:13] <Kano> then he should try to compile one of those modules
[14:14] <amitk> Kano: We will get to it when we compile LRM. Be patient.
[14:14] <Kano> i dont use that package
[14:14] <Kano> i am sure you can get to it faster
[14:15] <amitk> But we do. And as much as you would like, we don't work to your schedules. Sorry.
[14:15] <Kano> for me lrm is the biggest crap ever introduced
[14:16] <Kano> kernel+lum are ok, but not lrm
[14:16] <maks_> Kano: you are on a old base
[14:16] <maks_> that paravirt problem got resolved since some time irc
[14:16] <Kano> maks_: old base?
[14:17] <Kano> i compiled it this night
[14:17] <maks_> linux-2.6 ?
[14:17] <maks_> irc that was a trouble of 2.6.22 or 2.6.21
[14:17] <Kano> thats a new 2.6.24 regression!
[14:18] <maks_> cool
[14:18] <maks_> good news then Kano :)
[14:20] <amitk> Kano: if it is fixed in 2.6.24, we will pick it up. If it isn't  then ATI will eventually fix their stuff just as Nvidia is. But disabling partvirt is NOT an option.
[14:20] <Kano> amitk: until you want to use gpl drivers you can not enable it
[14:21] <amitk> Then we will solve it when we get to that problem
[14:22] <amitk> *shrug*
[14:25] <Kano> you are really funny
[14:25] <Kano> you dont own ati or nv gfx cards=
[14:31] <maks_> radeonhd works pretty fine on ati
[14:31] <maks_> well nouveau is kind of stalled..
[14:31] <maks_> so don't buy nv
[14:31] <Kano> you have ideas, unbeleaveable
[14:32] <Kano> radeonhd has no xv support
[15:22] <Kano> when will be aufs available? there is no aufs or unionfs in lum
[15:22] <Kano> i would prefer aufs...
[17:20] <circut> hey all, anyone in?
[17:29] <circut> well i was just curios if the time information that the ubuntu kernel prints is a  special  kernel patch
[17:30] <circut> or if its already in the kernel source, just needs to be turned out
[17:30] <circut> there was something about printing timing info in the kernel hacking secrtion
[17:30] <circut> but its more like time elapsed, not current time
[17:55] <circut> hrm