[00:00] <Kano> apt-get source linux-image-$(uname -r)
[00:00] <yuhong> And yes, there are NX capable processors that does not support 64-bit.
[00:00] <yuhong> Intel Core for example.
[00:00] <Kano> then look into debian/binary-custom.d/ 
[00:00] <Kano> and try it
[00:01] <yuhong> I want the config to be the same as generic with PAE enabled.
[00:01] <Kano> then use it
[00:01] <yuhong> Which why I am not asking ubuntu-hardened.
[00:01] <Kano> a bit tricky to modifify linux-ubuntu-modules, but not that hard too
[00:02] <yuhong> Anyway, what is the status of this.
[00:03] <Kano> yuhong: instead of complaining compile your own kernel i would say ;)
[00:03] <JanC> yuhong: it won't happen for gutsy
[00:03] <yuhong> No, too late anyway.
[00:04] <JanC> for hardy, you would have to convince the developers with very good reasons
[00:04] <yuhong> I can, but NX capable processors are so common and XP SP2 enables PAE with a compatiblity hack that there should be a generic-pae kernel.
[00:04] <Kano> yuhong: another way: compile debian bigmem kernel
[00:05] <yuhong> On NX capable processors, that is.
[00:05] <yuhong> Why doesn't ubuntu have that bigmem kernel.
[00:05] <Kano> it is called different
[00:05] <JanC> yuhong: does such a kernel boot on all systems that the current kernel boots on?
[00:06] <yuhong> No, that is why I am not removing the generic-nonpae kernel.
[00:06] <Kano> yuhong: in theory i could even write a script to compile such a kernel ;)
[00:06] <JanC> I don't think there is space on the desktop install CD for multiple kernels...
[00:06] <yuhong> XP SP2 handle this by having the bootloader not use the PAE kernel if the processor is not PAE capable or PAE is not enabled.
[00:07] <yuhong> Either by NX or otherwise.
[00:08] <Kano> well linux is not xp
[00:08] <Kano> your kernel has pae enabled or not,you have to select it
[00:09] <Kano> also when you would know better about xp then you know the installer write this boot.ini option
[00:09] <yuhong> Even in Windows, there are separate kernels for each combination of SMP, non SMP, PAE, and non-PAE.
[00:09] <yuhong> The bootloader choose the kernel used.
[00:09] <Kano> that means when you exchange the cpu from a cpu without nx to a cpu with nx you will NOT use nx
[00:10] <Kano> it is not dynamic
[00:10] <yuhong> This kind of switching used in NTLDR is probably not feasible for Linux.
[00:10] <yuhong> But at least have a PAE kernel.
[00:11] <Kano> there is one ;)
[00:11] <yuhong> Yes, but it is for servers.
[00:11] <Kano> nobody helds you back to use it
[00:12] <yuhong> I am recommending a desktop PAE kernel because almost all current processors have NX
[00:12] <Kano> best complile a yuhung kernel, makes you feel better :)
[00:13] <yuhong> And enabling NX increases security.
[00:13] <Kano> i highly doubt that
[00:13] <yuhong> Windows enables PAE to take advantage of NX on current processors too.
[00:14] <Kano> yuhong: is windows secure because of nx? thats a marketing gag
[00:14] <yuhong> Though with a compatiblity hack that limits physical address space to 4G.
[00:14] <yuhong> Because of driver problems.
[00:14] <yuhong> I agree that Windows is secure not just because of NX.
[00:14] <yuhong> But still, windows does it.
[00:15] <Kano> yuhong: usually the apps are more insecure than the kernel, so just attack em
[00:16] <yuhong> Correct, but NX can prevent app buffer overflows too.
[00:16] <Kano> scripts that can access other files from a webserver or whatever
[00:16] <Kano> do you know how many php mistakes are exploitable
[00:17] <yuhong> I know, but NX can prevent app buffer overflows too.
[00:17] <Kano> i see really no reason to extra harden desktop systems
[00:17] <yuhong> But as I said, Windows does it too.
[00:18] <yuhong> And as I said, NX can protect more than just the kernel.
[00:18] <Kano> even apparmor is useless against stupid users ;)
[00:19] <yuhong> Maybe, but Windows does it too.
[00:19] <Kano> yuhong: every one with phyiscal access to a linux pc can install backdoors or change everything until you encrypt all
[00:19] <yuhong> Correct.
[00:19] <Kano> same applies to win
[00:19] <yuhong> correct.
[00:20] <Kano> so what attacks are you fearing most?
[00:20] <yuhong> But stilll, Windows does that switching to PAE to enable NX too.
[00:20] <Kano> you are just too funny ;)
[00:20] <yuhong> I am suggesting this not because of attacks.
[00:20] <Kano> because of win i know *g*
[00:21] <yuhong> But because NX can enhance security, thus Windows does it too.
[00:21] <yuhong> I mean, Windows does that switching to PAE to enable NX too.
[00:21] <Kano> sure but it still did not get any more secure by this, good example *g*
[00:22] <Kano> at least not xp
[00:23] <yuhong> Windows were forced to enable NX only for system components by default because of appcompat issues.
[00:23] <Kano> yuhong: and you are using win now,right ;)
[00:23] <yuhong> Thankfully Linux is open source, thus any issues with NX and PAE can be fixed.
[00:24] <yuhong> But I am running Ubuntu in a VM.
[00:24] <yuhong> So no need for the hack that limits PA like with Windows.
[00:26] <Kano> do you know, that a kernel with slower timer works faster in a vm?
[00:26] <yuhong> And saves power on laptops as well.
[00:26] <yuhong> But I am not talking about timers.
[00:27] <Kano> in your case: just install the server kernel, desktop optimisation is not required at all
[00:27] <yuhong> But what about the many people who have processors that have NX.
[00:28] <Kano> yuhong: they dont care
[00:28] <yuhong> No, but NX is enabled in Windows by default in these computers.
[00:28] <Kano> did they notice this? no
[00:29] <yuhong> No, but it does enhance security.
[00:29] <Kano> you must be a real hacker target *g*
[00:29] <yuhong> In fact, AMD and Intel advertises NX by another name.
[00:30] <yuhong> And I don't think it is sensible to have NX not enabled in Ubuntu by default when NX is enabled in Windows by default.
[00:31] <Kano> default is impossibel for old cpus
[00:31] <yuhong> No but at least provide a PAE kernel.
[00:31] <zul> we do its the server kernel
[00:32] <yuhong> Windows deals with this by bootloader autodetection.
[00:32] <yuhong> But it is impossible for Linux.
[00:32] <Kano> best write a patch for grub ;)
[00:32] <yuhong> Except maybe the Installer can automaticly install the PAE kernel on PAE machines and enable it by default on NX.
[00:33] <Kano> yuhong: as you are in your vm: check: grep -o nx /proc/cpuinfo
[00:33] <Kano> do you get that flag
[00:34] <yuhong> Wait.
[00:35] <Kano> if you get no output then your discussion is completely useless
[00:35] <yuhong> For me that is.
[00:35] <Kano> as you could not even boot that kernel 
[00:35] <yuhong> Which is why I am not removing the nonpae kernel.
[00:38] <Kano> so you want something just for others ;)
[00:38] <yuhong> And also my physical processor support PAE.
[00:39] <Kano> then boot it phyiscal ;)
[00:39] <yuhong> BTW, Vista allow you to shrink a volume.
[00:40] <Kano> but is is too stupid to install on a partition without active flag set which every win version could do before ;)
[00:44] <yuhong> BTW, I am downloading the alternate CD to see if that will work.
[00:45] <Kano> you can resize with gparted too
[00:47] <yuhong> BTW, GRUB 0.97 is older than GRUB 1.95
[00:48] <Kano> you can count
[00:48] <Kano> but thats a completely differnet branch
[00:48] <yuhong> Correct.
[00:48] <Kano> do you need grub2
[00:49] <yuhong> But GRUB 2 is better, and support EFI booting, important for Intel Macs.
[00:49] <Kano> thats absolutely unimportant
[00:49] <Kano> as intel macs can boot with normal grub as well
[00:49] <yuhong> And GRUB 1.95 is 1 year newer than GRUB 0.97.
[00:49] <Kano> you only need it for booting
[00:50] <yuhong> But CSM booting on Intel Macs is a completely different can of worms.
[00:50] <yuhong> For example, external HDs and netboot.
[00:50] <Kano> when you look at intel mac you can say that the integrated madwifi driver is not working with em but a newer svn snapshot would do. but grub is totally unimportant
[00:51] <yuhong> BTW, does the radeonhd driver work with native EFI booting.
[00:51] <Kano> you do not need to boot efi natively as the mac has bios emulation
[00:51] <yuhong> If it doesn't it is not hard to modify it so it does.
[00:51] <Kano> as this was needed for win
[00:51] <Kano> so why play with efi if not needed?
[00:52] <yuhong> But the BIOS emulation have it's own problems.
[00:52] <Kano> it works
[00:52] <yuhong> For example, external HDs and netboot.
[00:52] <Kano> do you own a mac
[00:52] <yuhong> No, but I was thinking about how limited BIOS emulations in intel macs are.
[00:53] <yuhong> I once wished I could own one.
[00:53] <Kano> you are thinking, but i know kanotix users with intel mac and nobody needed something with efi
[00:54] <Kano> you can even boot cd using grub
[00:54] <yuhong> Someone mentioned booting DOS with Intel Mac's EFI emulation.
[00:54] <Kano> sure, should do as well
[00:54] <Kano> no need for grub2
[00:54] <yuhong> But that depends on how good BIOS emulation in Intel Macs are.
[00:54] <yuhong> I heard of keyboard problems for example.
[00:54] <Kano> when it can boot win it is good enough ;)
[00:55] <yuhong> For Linux, probably yes, but for DOS, it is a different matter.
[00:55] <yuhong> But what about external HDs and netboot?
[00:55] <Kano> yuhong: i hope you know any dos command *g*
[00:56] <yuhong> I heard of problems getting Intel Macs' BIOS emulation to boot from anything other than an internal hard disk or CD.
[00:56] <yuhong> For example, netboot and external HDs.
[00:57] <Kano> and thats your problem, right?
[00:57] <Kano> you can not use nx, nor you own a mac, so whats your problem
[00:57] <yuhong> No, but that is why EFI Linux booting should not be abandoned.
[00:58] <yuhong> I can use NX.
[00:58] <Kano> yuhong: you boot itanium with efi
[00:58] <yuhong> It is not my problem.
[00:58] <Kano> ia64
[00:58] <yuhong> Correct.
[00:59] <yuhong> you always boot itanium with EFI,
[00:59] <yuhong> I heard of problems getting Intel Macs' BIOS emulation to boot from external HDs or a network.
[00:59] <Kano> thats not your problem,dont care
[01:00] <yuhong> Not really my problem of course, and indeed my problem is with NX.
[01:00] <Kano> it si not you can use a kernel with nx enabled, a 64 bit system or you can compile your own kenrel
[01:01] <yuhong> Xserves does not have BIOS emulation.
[01:01] <yuhong> No not for me.
[01:01] <yuhong> But for the average users, it is.
[01:01] <Kano> you can be sure, that no average users needs that
[01:02] <yuhong> And Windows enables it seemlessly.
[01:02] <yuhong> Except that Windows enables it automaticly.
[01:02] <Kano> yuhong: how long do you use linux?
[01:02] <Kano> 10 min?
[01:03] <yuhong> Not really, more than that.
[01:03] <Kano> so how long
[01:03] <yuhong> But I read about linux a lot.
[01:03] <Kano> how long do you use it
[01:04] <yuhong> I ran a Linux VM on another computer for a while
[01:04] <Kano> never native?
[01:04] <yuhong> No, unfortunately, because of disk space.
[01:05] <Kano> the desktop iso images are live cds, you do not neven need a hd
[01:06] <yuhong> In any case, Windows enables NX automaticly on processors supporting it.
[01:06] <Kano> in any case you are too stupid to boot a live cd ;)
[01:06] <yuhong> I am not.
[01:06] <Kano> then why didnt you do it
[01:06] <yuhong> Linux can't, so a PAE kernel is the closest thing.
[01:07] <yuhong> I prefer to install in a VM.
[01:07] <Kano> you did not boot a live cd because you need pae?
[01:07] <yuhong> No.
[01:07] <Kano> so why not
[01:08] <Kano> hd space is not needed
[01:08] <yuhong> That is why the non-PAE kernel must be the default on Live CDs.
[01:08] <yuhong> But installing to a HD is a different matter.
[01:08] <Kano> why did you never boot it?
[01:09] <yuhong> Just easier to install in a VM.
[01:09] <Kano> usally a standard user wants speed
[01:09] <Kano> then he wants to play games, 3d games can not be used in a vm
[01:09] <yuhong> I am not stupid, I am thinking of the average user and comparing it to Windows.
[01:09] <yuhong> Not always.
[01:10] <Kano> an average user does not even know about pae but he does know that he wants to use 3d, for compiz, games or whatever
[01:10] <yuhong> Correct.
[01:10] <Kano> nobody cares about pae
[01:10] <yuhong> And Windows enables NX automaticly.
[01:11] <Kano> but no user cares about
[01:11] <yuhong> A PAE kernel is the closest thing  for linux.
[01:11] <yuhong> I agree for the average user, but keep in mind that both Intel and AMD advertised PAE once.
[01:12] <yuhong> I mean NX.
[01:12] <Kano> marketing yes
[01:12] <Kano> amd said it would stop virues, it didnt
[01:12] <yuhong> Requiring NX for PAE may be a good thing.
[01:12] <Kano> nothing changed for xp
[01:12] <Kano> absolutely nothing
[01:13] <yuhong> No not completely, espricially because Windows XP does not enable NX by default for all programs.
[01:13] <Kano> how many linux virues do you know
[01:13] <yuhong> Because of appcompat.
[01:14] <yuhong> But linux is open source.
[01:14] <Kano> you know nothing,but you knwo this best
[01:14] <Kano> sweet dreams
[01:14] <yuhong> Not true.
[01:15] <yuhong> Requiring NX for PAE may be a good thing.
[01:15] <yuhong> Because it finally push transmeta and VIA to add PAE support.
[01:26] <yuhong> In any case, should there be a PAE kernel in Linux because NX is enabled by default in Windows and NX requires PAE?
[01:27] <yuhong> I mean ubuntu.
[02:42] <yuhong> So in the end, will a PAE desktop kernel be available in Ubuntu? Because PAE is required to enable NX.
[10:14] <pkh> I want to get an updated sierra driver included in the ubuntu kernel.  can someone point me in the right direction for the procedure of dealing with this?
[10:17] <abogani> pkh: This is a good to start: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KnowledgeBase
[10:17] <abogani> pkh: Particularly https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelGitGuide in your case.
[10:18] <tjaalton> sweet, a new l-r-m for 2.6.24. it needs newer nvidia/fglrx though, AIUI
[10:20] <pkh> abogani: thanks.  will dive into it.
[10:38] <pkh> i'm not sure what to do.  I want to get an updated sierra driver into the kernel, but i'm not sure whether I should be working from the ubuntu end or the "linus' tree"?
[11:26] <dade`> where can i get ubuntu sources for kernel 2.6.22-12 ?
[11:30] <amitk> dade`: git clone git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-gutsy.git OR apt-get install linux-source
[11:30] <dade`> no
[11:30] <dade`> gutsy uses -14 by default
[11:31] <dade`> i need -12
[11:31] <dade`> the -14 has bugs i can't afford
[11:32] <amitk> dade`: Once you get the git tree, you can roll back to whatever version you need using git commands
[11:32] <dade`> this is more interesting
[11:34] <dade`> I found this https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/2.6.22-12.39
[11:35] <dade`> to match the -12 image, do i need to apply the .diff.gz patches, or they're applied already ?
[11:35] <dade`> i guess I have to apply them.
[11:36] <abogani> dade`: In your shoes i prefer git-archive or git-bisect...
[11:38] <dade`> yes but i need to learn how to use them, and I just want to enable CONFIG_NO_HZ
[11:39] <dade`> is someone working on this https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/151016 ?
[11:39] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 151016 in linux-source-2.6.22 "New in 2.6.22-13: system takes a LONG time to resume from suspend" [Undecided,Confirmed] 
[11:43] <zdzichu_> I have similar bug, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/135083
[11:43] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 135083 in ubuntu "resume from STR is very slow on Thinkpad z61t" [Undecided,New] 
[11:43] <zdzichu_> with no comments
[14:10] <lkolbe> Hi! I'm trying to build the ubuntu kernel from the git repository (git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-gutsy.git). following the procedure in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelMaintenance, fakeroot debian/rules binary-arch does work, but dpkg-buildpackage does not - it complains loudly about files in build/ and .git that it can't represent changes in there.
[14:10] <lkolbe> e.g., i can't build a source-package directly out of the git-tree
[14:10] <lkolbe> I know I'm missing something obvious here, I just can't figure out what ...
[14:17] <rtg_> lkolbe: try 'debuild -b' to see if it complains about missing dependencies.
[14:23] <lkolbe> hm, thanks. I did install missing dependencies and try to build again now. 
[14:23]  * lkolbe thinks d'oh
[14:24] <rtg_> lkolbe: if it still complains then 'make mrproper;git checkout -f;debuild -b'
[14:26] <lkolbe> okay, thanks rtg_! I'll let you hear if it works out ...
[14:36] <lkolbe> hm, okay, different problems - I try to use pbuilder for the kernel build, and it tries to make a source-package:
[14:37] <lkolbe> "dpkg-buildpackage: failure: dpkg-source -b ubuntu-gutsy gave error exit status 1", it compains about "newly created empty file"s and 'cannot  represent change to build/scripts/basic/fixdep' and all that
[14:38] <rtg_> lkolbe: what is your goal ? An installable binary deb or a source deb? "dpkg-buildpackage -S -sa -rfakeroot -I.git -I.gitignore -i'\.git.*'" to build a source package.
[14:38] <lkolbe> I'm trying to build kernel .debs that I can dupload to our local repository for distribution :)
[14:39] <lamont> lkolbe: debuild -i.git
[14:39] <rtg_> lkolbe: to make the build faster, restrict it to one flavour to begin with: 'fakeroot debian/rules binary-debs flavours=generic'
[14:40] <rtg_> lkolbe: you should also have ccache installed and setup.
[14:40] <lamont> or what rtg_ said first. :-)
[14:40]  * lamont shuts up
[14:41] <rtg_> lamont: dude, I love to hear different ways of doing stuff :) Like rebase v.s. merge. I listened to Randal's talk. I've been having the same argument with BenC.
[14:42] <lamont> "if you publish your changes for consumption by other than upstream, rebasing is unkind."
[14:42] <lkolbe> Thanks alot. I'm still waiting for dpkg-buildpackage -S .. to complete. If it works, I shoudl be able to use pbuilder :)
[14:42] <lamont> I think that summarizes randal's explaination nicely.
[14:43]  * lamont considers anew actually running pbuilder at least once in his life.
[14:43] <rtg_> lamont: I happen to agree with him. I have yet to really grok the advantage of Ubuntu rebasing as opposed to merge. 
[14:43] <rtg_> lkolbe: you're on your own with pbuilder :)
[14:43] <lamont> rtg_: if it's your tree, then rebasing is love.  it's everyone based on your tree that hates life.
[14:44] <lamont> so, if you want to win the discussion with BenC, take over pushing ubuntu-hardy, and rebase it, once BenC is doing active development that isn't immediately pushed into the tree.
[14:44] <lamont> rebasing keeps the gitk mess prettier
[14:44] <lamont> gitk screws anyone downstream, since commits go *poof*
[14:45] <rtg_> lamont: all of the kernel devs push to the repo, but once in awhile (supposedly on a schedule now) we sync with Linus.
[14:45] <lamont> right.  and as long as BenC is pushing to the repo, and not doing devel in a repo based off of ubuntu's repo, he won't understand our pain
[14:46] <BenC> the basic idea is that rebasing makes it easier for us to move from 2.6.22 to 2.6.24
[14:46] <lamont> rebasing to 2.6.24 I can certainly see.
[14:46] <BenC> lamont: I don't manage the main git repo's anymore :P
[14:46] <lamont> regularly rebasing once we're there is just pain
[14:46] <lamont> BenC: heh. ok
[14:46] <rtg_> lamont: perhaps you should be basing your hppa devel off of Linus tree, then reconcile your patches with Ubuntu periodically. We ought to be pretty close most of the time.
[14:46] <lamont> rtg_: so much for our planning in secret, eh?
[14:47]  * BenC rains on the parade
[14:47] <lamont> rtg_: actually, my ubuntu-hppa tree isn't that active at all.
[14:47] <lamont> it's more what I've run into elsewhere.
[14:47] <rtg_> lamont: hell, I'm trying to get into this open source jive. Most of my career has been developing in the dark.
[14:48] <lamont> and then there's the challenges when hppa has a needed fix that isn't in the main repo, and is having challenges getting in because of a checkpoint-freeze..  those can be painful, and yet I understand the reasons for the lamont-pain-causing reluctance.
[14:48] <lamont> it hurts me when I have to tell myself "no".
[14:48] <rtg_> lamont: so how many hppa users are there? As many as there are ia64 users ?
[14:49] <lamont> less.
[14:49] <rtg_> At last count I think there were 4 ia64 users.
[14:49] <lamont> there exists a small possibility that we don't fit on one hand anymore. :0)
[14:49] <lamont> ia64 desktop? sounds about right. ia64 server? more
[14:49] <rtg_> I think the xen community has a hard time, and there are a bunch more users there.
[14:50] <lamont> hppa?  lets see... me, jbailey, (did we get BenC hardware?), t-bone, and probably a couple more
[14:50] <rtg_> though it will get easier as more ofit is pulled into mainline kernel.
[14:50] <lamont> yeah.  and most of the hppa stuff is pushed into mainline quickly, so we really don't have much pain.
[14:51] <lamont> kyle for the win
[14:51] <rtg_> lamont: do you think jeff actually moved his to mt view?
[14:51] <BenC> lamont: I haven't received anything lately...my ia64 is dead, and the a500 hasn't booted a recent kernel since edgy
[14:51] <BenC> gutsy might work, but I haven't tested it
[14:51] <lamont> rtg_: he got new hppa gear in mtview... ggg is there, and all is lover.
[14:51] <lamont> BenC: I need to poke our guy to get me the ia64 box so I can install it
[14:52] <rtg_> BenC: maybe we should slice the ia64 baggage out of the kernel if there is no serious maintenance effort.
[14:52] <lamont> BenC: would you like a J6K?  (same rack space as an A500, no MP interface, but it can run 32- or 64- bit kernels)
[14:52] <lamont> oh, and gutsy is a little unstable on SMP A500, hence the ugly 2.6.22 hppa64 config
[14:52] <BenC> lamont: yeah, that would be nice
[14:52] <BenC> rtg_: only baggage there is some config files...not much overhead in that
[14:53]  * lamont makes a note to pester the nice admin guy to schlep the box to his cube
[14:53] <lamont> rtg_: there is pretty serious ia64 maint effort. just not many users...
[14:53] <lamont> and BenC should have working ia64 gear before new years, modulo UPS love.
[14:54] <lamont> (the freight company, not the backup power)
[14:54] <lamont> hrm.. time to get ready and go to the office for a 9AM meeting
[14:54] <rtg_> lamont: they seem to have a hard time finding his house.
[14:55] <lamont> mebbe I should give them lat-longs?
[14:55] <lamont> anyway, gone.
[14:56] <zul> hey
[14:58] <lkolbe> yippie - dpkg-buildpackage -S -sa -rfakeroot -I.git -I.gitignore -i'(\.git.*|build.*)' finally builds the source-package. Now on to pbuilder. ... :)
[14:58] <rtg_> zul: speaking of xen...
[14:58] <zul> rtg_
[14:58] <zul> where? 
[14:59] <rtg_> zul: it just came up in the discussion of rebase vs merge. 
[15:00] <zul> rtg_: ah yes i was reading the backscroll redhat is doing alot of it now for 2.6.24 so we can use dom0 with xen paravirt-ops
[15:01] <rtg_> zul: do you think you will still need a custom flavour for xen?
[15:01] <zul> yep
[15:07] <zul> rtg_: fyi http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops
[15:13] <rtg_> zul: huh. looks like a lot of work left.
[15:13] <zul> yep
[15:22] <humbolto> How well is the the ubuntu kernel patched for xen? Would you recommend it for a production environment?
[15:24] <zul> depends but you would be safer using the kernel from xensource
[15:34] <humbolto> have not seen any kernels there.
[15:39] <FlashBiker> hello everyone
[15:40] <FlashBiker> i have a problem installing ubuntu on my Acer Aspire 5520G
[15:40] <FlashBiker> my nvidia sata controller doesn`t seem to be recognised
[15:50] <FlashBiker> anyone alive in here?
[15:52] <FlashBiker> anyone alive in here?
[15:53] <reynaldo_> FlashBiker: what kernel version are you trying to boot with and what are the details of your specific sata controller?
[15:55] <FlashBiker> 2.6.20
[15:56] <FlashBiker> reynaldo: i`m using 2.6.20-15-generic
[15:58] <reynaldo> FlashBiker: do you think you can try to boot with gutsy (2.6.22(?)) and see if the problem is still present ?
[15:58] <FlashBiker> yes it still persists
[15:58] <FlashBiker> but i was told that...
[15:59] <FlashBiker> in the modules.pcimap... there is no entry refering to my device
[16:00] <FlashBiker> this is my device
[16:00] <FlashBiker> PCI bridge: sVIDIA Corporation Unknown device 0563 (rev a2)
[16:00] <FlashBiker> oir if i do lspci -n
[16:00] <FlashBiker> 00.00.0 0500: 10de:0547 (rev a2)
[16:01] <FlashBiker> this is the first entry in modules.pcimap
[16:01] <zul> try booting with all_generic_ide
[16:02] <FlashBiker> now?
[16:02] <FlashBiker> how?
[16:03] <zul> try googling for all_generic_ide
[16:07] <reynaldo> FlashBiker: sorry I didn't managage to help you further, I was looking to see if there where reported bugs against your kernel version and the specific controller you have but all I found was a claimed to be fixed bug against a similard card: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/145005
[16:07] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 145005 in linux-source-2.6.22 "[gutsy] kernel 2.6.22-12 doesn't boot with nVidia MCP65 SATA Controller pci id [10de:045d]" [High,Fix released] 
[16:09] <FlashBiker> ubotu: so there is no kernel that supports my hardware?
[16:09] <reynaldo> FlashBiker: do what zul said, and yes, there seems to be no specific support for your card
[16:09] <reynaldo> alltough that doesnt mean you cant use it
[16:10] <FlashBiker> i`m trying it now
[16:10] <cr3> in /proc/modules, I noticed that some lines end with (P). I thought that each line in /proc/modules consisted of the columns: name, size, instances, dependencies, state and offset. so, what's that final (P) column?
[16:12] <FlashBiker> it seems to have done something...
[16:12] <FlashBiker> but now my xservers is having some buggs
[16:13]  * reynaldo just relized ubotu passed the turing test :-)
[16:18] <reynaldo> rel/real
[16:51] <reynaldo> be back in half an hour
[17:11] <BenC> amitk__, rtg_: ping
[17:11] <amitk__> pong
[17:11] <rtg_> BenC: yo
[17:11] <BenC> I'm late as usual, but this should be quick
[17:11] <BenC> cr3: ping
[17:12] <cr3> BenC: pong
[17:12] <BenC> zul, mjg59`: ping
[17:12]  * BenC rounds up the gang
[17:12] <zul> BenC: yo
[17:12] <BenC> This is just going to be a quick kernel meeting to supplement the lack of #ubuntu-meeting/fridge being scheduled like it needs to be
[17:14] <BenC> Agenda is simple: 1) Go over current state of hardy kernel. 2) cr3 to discuss cert process and kernel team, 3) Open floor for questions/comments
[17:14] <rtg_> BenC: 1) We are behind the eight ball. Linus has released -rc5
[17:14] <BenC> So the basic idea right now is that linux 2.6.24 and accompanying lum/lrm has been uploaded
[17:15] <BenC> rtg_: I'm more concerned with everything compiling than staying close in sync with Linus, ATM
[17:16] <BenC> lots of things are in dep-wait right now, so I'm not sure what the real state is
[17:16] <BenC> The objective is to get all this sorted out by the end of  the week, so we can have a 2.6.24 based Alpha 2 on the 20th
[17:17] <BenC> Any questions about this simple plan? :)
[17:17] <zul> not here
[17:18] <rtg_> I guess the one core-dev we have on the kernel team is gonna be busy.
[17:18] <zul> er we have 3 core-devs
[17:18] <BenC> only one that will be doing linux-2.6.24 source uploads
[17:20] <BenC> Ok
[17:20] <BenC> cr3: you have the floor
[17:21] <cr3> I would like to announce that the hwtest framework, which is used as the basis for hardware certification and server enablement, now supports automated tests.
[17:21] <cr3> I would also like to inform you guys that steve george has suggested that the support department should start solving cases by also creating a script to reproduce the problem encountered.
[17:22] <cr3> this script could then be added to hwtest to make sure the problem doesn't occur again
[17:22] <BenC> cr3: is there an API for these scripts, or are they just generic types...and are they run as root?
[17:22] <cr3> the purpose of sharing all this information is that the same concept could apply to the kernel team: if you encounter a problem which is easily scriptable in something runnable from the command-line, I could add it to hwtest very easily
[17:23] <BenC> cr3: and how do we get feedback from these scripts?
[17:23] <cr3> BenC: the simplest way is to just write a script callable from the command line which returns 0 on success and non-0 on failure and, yes, this is run as root.
[17:23] <cr3> BenC: currently, certification.canonical.com. the fact this is a private website is a concern shared by myself and other team members, such as liw who works on desktop testing.
[17:24] <BenC> cr3: it's a good start, thanks for the framework. We'll have to see if we can hash out how to make this useful for our engineering efforts
[17:24] <cr3> BenC: from lack of a more suitable alternative, we agreed to use this private website and improve it with the experience we will gain during hardy. this experience could then be reused by the launchpad team when developing their hardware database website or some other testing site if necessary.
[17:25] <cr3> BenC: do you have somekind of setup for running tests for hardware vendors?
[17:26] <BenC> cr3: we only do manual testing
[17:26] <BenC> boot, install, try out all the hardware
[17:27] <rtg_> cr3: some of this stuff is hard to automate, like audio.
[17:28] <cr3> rtg_: I also have manual tests for audio and video, which you could reuse.
[17:28] <rtg_> cr3: cool.
[17:29] <cr3> so, I mentionned how scripts written by the kernel team could be useful to me when performing my own test runs. could the suite be useful to the kernel team as well?
[17:30] <BenC> cr3: is this hardware testing, or basic OS testing?
[17:30] <rtg_> cr3: perhaps in cases where we are trying to reproduce a bug.
[17:30] <cr3> by the way, I don't want this script writing to incur more overhead than the gains you would have, so we could start by just emailing me scripts you might write on the corner of the table
[17:31] <cr3> BenC: hardware testing, but there will be some OS testing done by other teams
[17:31] <cr3> BenC: err, when you say "hardware testing", do you mean like checking that there are badblocks or checking compatibility of Ubuntu with the hardware?
[17:32] <BenC> cr3: we're only interesting in spending our time on hardware testing
[17:32] <BenC> cr3: compatibility, and functionality
[17:32] <BenC> *interested
[17:33] <cr3> right, that's what I'm concentrating on as well. I have recently added a feature which relates tests with specific devices. so, I should eventually be able to generate a view where you see all devices on a machine and the number of tests passed/failed for each device
[17:34] <cr3> the relations are expressed with simple boolean expressions: 'net.80203' in info.capabilities
[17:34] <BenC> excellent
[17:35] <cr3> or: 'fpu' in cpuinfo.flags and cpuinfo.vendor_id == 'GenuineIntel'
[17:35] <BenC> cr3: Could you provide me an email with more detail on this framework?
[17:35] <cr3> BenC: sure, I have a bug to document the framework some more. mind if I fix this bug and then email you the corresponding documentation?
[17:36] <BenC> cr3: sounds good
[17:36] <BenC> I'll toss the info on kernel-team@ and see if we can get some discussion and ideas
[17:36] <cr3> maybe this darn project should have a website with a mailing list at some point
[17:36] <BenC> cr3: thanks for your time
[17:37] <cr3> BenC: thanks for the audience, we'll keep in touch
[17:37] <BenC> Any topics people want to bring up now?
[17:38] <zul> nope
[17:39] <BenC> Ok, then this meeting is adjourned :)
[17:40] <BenC> thanks everyone
[17:42] <lamont> BenC: so, given 2ea 73 GB drives, you want raid1?
[17:42] <lamont> or two drives?
[17:42] <BenC> lamont: raid1
[17:42] <lamont> ok.  /me finally found the machine that the nice man schlepped over several days ago
[17:43] <soren> mjg59`: rtg_ and I are interested why you think https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/usplash/+bug/139453 is a kernel issue?
[17:43] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 139453 in usplash "colors are left on the screen after blanking with usplash enabled" [High,Triaged] 
[17:44] <lamont> soren: sounds, uh, colorful. :-)
[17:44] <soren> doh..
[17:44] <soren> :)
[17:49] <zul> BenC: has anyone considered going through sourceforge and looking for drivers compared to feature requests on launchpad?
[17:50] <BenC> zul: no, are you volunteering? :)
[17:50] <BenC> stability is a major issue when taking in drivers like that
[17:50] <zul> sure i have time
[17:54] <mjg59`> soren: The kernel's responsible for blanking the screen on the console. If it's not doing so, that sounds like a kernel bug.
[17:55] <soren> mjg59`: Um... Yes, I suppose it's as simple as that :) I just kind of hoped you'd have a bit more of an idea.
[17:55] <mjg59`> Ah, no. I never got beyond that :)
[17:57] <soren> Ok. :)
[19:10] <reynaldo> BenC: you around ?
[20:33] <BenC> reynaldo: yeah
[20:35] <reynaldo> Hi Ben, I'd like you to mentor me for the device manager work on launchpad
[20:35] <reynaldo> but I'm unsure what the procces to atain that entitles
[20:36] <reynaldo> i'm talking about https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeviceManagerSpec
[20:37] <reynaldo> its the only 'mentoring available' item in the ubuntu-kernel group
[20:37] <reynaldo> hope you can understand what I'm saying, I'm not a native speaker
[20:39] <BenC> reynaldo: basically, just get to work on it :)
[20:40] <BenC> reynaldo: if you have any questions, feel free to email me
[20:41] <reynaldo> Yeah, Id like to know if I can trust the blueprint contents to be rigth
[20:41] <reynaldo> they suggest this to be moved, in the 'work with the gnome dudes intead' sence
[20:41] <reynaldo> the basic idea was to for hal-device-manager
[20:42] <reynaldo> fork
[20:44] <reynaldo> now it seems is just a matter of helping gnome-device-manager's upstream development. that's what got me confused
[20:46] <reynaldo> I'm more of an 'invent all the wheels again, as long as all other wheels are square' kind of guy :)
[20:55] <BenC> reynaldo: actually, there's some discussion outside of the spec, with some other developers working to do the same thing
[20:55] <BenC> reynaldo: email me, and I'll get you in contact with them
[21:02] <reynaldo> BenC, done, thanks for your time. hope to be of some help :-)
[21:14] <reynaldo> back in an hour