| tjaalton | apw: I noticed that you were assigned to bug 256296 | 09:09 |
|---|---|---|
| ubot3 | Malone bug 256296 in linux "USB id 0af0:6911 should use hso and not 'option' driver" [Medium,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/256296 | 09:09 |
| apw | tjaalton, hrm ... | 09:09 |
| tjaalton | I've got a similar(ish) device, id 0af0:7011 that uses option by default, but removing it and loading hso doesn't seem to work | 09:09 |
| tjaalton | :) | 09:09 |
| apw | hm i didn't remember it, as it seems to have been one where a stable update fixed it for us | 09:10 |
| apw | so i didn't really do anything to it :) | 09:10 |
| tjaalton | bummer | 09:11 |
| tjaalton | this one doesn't work in jaunty, but I'll go hunt a patch for it | 09:11 |
| apw | when you say removing it and loading hso, do you mean litteraly just rmmod modprobe? | 09:11 |
| tjaalton | yes | 09:11 |
| tjaalton | probably isn't enough | 09:12 |
| apw | that i wouldn't expect to do anything, one of them will be tied to that PCI id | 09:12 |
| * apw checks | 09:12 | |
| tjaalton | right.. | 09:12 |
| Kano | hi, is anybody working on 2.6.29 today | 09:12 |
| Kano | the acpi dir is missing from header package | 09:12 |
| apw | yeah hso has those usb id's in it | 09:13 |
| apw | drivers/net/usb/hso.c:{default_port_device(0x0af0, 0x7011)}, | 09:14 |
| apw | so i would have expected that one to be loaded not option | 09:14 |
| apw | but that is what you wanted me thinks? | 09:14 |
| tjaalton | does it need an entry in unusual_devs.h? | 09:14 |
| apw | is it a disk? | 09:14 |
| tjaalton | both | 09:14 |
| apw | that is for storage | 09:14 |
| tjaalton | the storage part has windows drivers.. | 09:15 |
| apw | it only needs an entry there if is its broken | 09:15 |
| apw | ie non-standard in some way | 09:15 |
| tjaalton | https://lists.one-eyed-alien.net/pipermail/usb-storage/2009-January/004498.html | 09:15 |
| apw | thats not the same id's tho | 09:15 |
| tjaalton | no, but similar fashion | 09:16 |
| apw | you could try duplicating that one | 09:17 |
| apw | and putting your id's on it | 09:17 |
| apw | assuming you have nothing on it you care about | 09:18 |
| tjaalton | nope | 09:18 |
| apw | you presumably are ok making your own kernels to test this? | 09:21 |
| apw | you should file a bug for this either way of course | 09:21 |
| tjaalton | yes, sure | 09:22 |
| tjaalton | sigh, hal should've picked it up but didn't | 09:28 |
| tjaalton | or maybe it really needs the kernel patch first | 09:32 |
| apw | Keybuk, hey ... was it you who told me they had tried booting in OnDemand and it was slower | 09:40 |
| Kano | tjaalton: do you play with aufs? | 09:44 |
| tjaalton | Kano: no | 09:46 |
| Kano | anybody else? | 09:46 |
| tjaalton | apw: silly question; how do I get the correct hex values for UNUSUAL_DEV? the first two are obvious, but the rest aren't | 09:55 |
| apw | the first two are the usb id, the next two are the bcdDevice range, low, high | 09:57 |
| apw | i see in the one you are copying they are 0000 and 9999 so use those | 09:57 |
| apw | ie _all_ devices in that id | 09:57 |
| tjaalton | ok, thanks | 09:58 |
| === mdz_ is now known as mdz | ||
| tjaalton | apw: tried this http://users.tkk.fi/~tjaalton/foo/option-7011.diff but it didn't seem to work | 11:09 |
| tjaalton | duh | 11:10 |
| apw | ? | 11:10 |
| tjaalton | maybe I should've used US_FL_IGNORE_DEVICE instead of 0 | 11:10 |
| apw | heh | 11:10 |
| tjaalton | because jaunty doesn't have option_ms_init, the "0" was a leftover from the other patch | 11:11 |
| _ruben | when having just ssh access at your disposal .. how can one increase the entropy pool? .. generating a 2048 rsa key on a remote seems to have stalled | 11:21 |
| lool | apw: Given you last touched the prerm, I think you'd be the best person to review the proposed changes to fix https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/348395 | 11:36 |
| ubot3 | Malone bug 348395 in linux "Leaves /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/*.bin files behind" [Undecided,New] | 11:36 |
| apw | lool ack | 11:37 |
| apw | as in i'll look | 11:37 |
| NCommander | The lpia configuration currently has CONFIG_ATA as a module, can we change that to be compiled in? Its causing the installer to break down and cry since it can't find the HDD or the CD-ROM | 11:37 |
| apw | lool there is no fix on there | 11:37 |
| NCommander | (I'd actually like to copy the current i386 config to lpia, since there are quite a few differences it seems | 11:38 |
| apw | but its also a duplicate of a bug which is in progress | 11:38 |
| apw | i'll get it sorted out | 11:38 |
| lool | apw: There's a description of what to change, which is to list the three files in the @files_to_remove array | 11:38 |
| apw | lool. yes indeed | 11:39 |
| lool | Which I think is as long to do for someone than merging a patch or a git tree, but really much faster for me | 11:39 |
| apw | thanks for the heads up | 11:39 |
| lool | apw: Didn't find the duplicate though, sorry | 11:39 |
| apw | don't worry i never ever find anything in launchpad either | 11:40 |
| apw | its search and i do not get on | 11:40 |
| lool | (I only found users with this issue in forums etc. when googling) | 11:40 |
| apw | dammit launchpad is soooo slow | 11:40 |
| === lool changed the topic of #ubuntu-kernel to: Ubuntu kernel development discussion ONLY | Kernel Wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam | Latest news: Released 2.6.28 kernel for Jaunty/9.04. | Kernel git trees: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git | Latest kernel upload: 2.6.28-11.36 based on 2.6.28.8 final | ||
| lool | (removed quotes in topic) | 11:40 |
| lool | apw: Today? | 11:41 |
| lool | :-P | 11:41 |
| apw | now, always, | 11:41 |
| apw | you watch anyone who uses it a lot | 11:41 |
| apw | and they have loads of tab based tricks to get round its immense slowness | 11:41 |
| apw | prefetching bugs and stuff | 11:41 |
| lool | Yeah, I don't think I would notice if it becomes fast in the future, I'll continue loading pages in the background while context switching to something else | 11:42 |
| apw | heh see, you do it too | 11:42 |
| lool | Yeah, and my ADSL doesn't help, it's sluggish and loses packets; anyway => lunch & | 11:43 |
| NCommander | second question, is there an easy way to build the lpia kernel on amd64? | 11:48 |
| tjaalton | apw: huh, hso claims that "not our device" when modprobing it | 12:05 |
| tjaalton | sorry, "Not our interface" | 12:05 |
| tjaalton | looking at hso.c doesn't list the id as USB_DEVICE | 12:06 |
| Kano | hi rtg , did you get what i worte yesterday, that the acpi dir is missing from 2.6.29 header package? I have no idea how to fix it, please do | 12:06 |
| apw | Kano, wahts the bug number | 12:06 |
| Kano | i guess there is none,because the error is in git only | 12:07 |
| Kano | but the result of this problem is that: http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16173 | 12:07 |
| Kano | the correct fglrx patch does not work due to missing files | 12:07 |
| apw | if the headers package is missing files, then its a bug on your machine. so lets get a bug filed | 12:07 |
| apw | we have someone looking at a different missing header at the moment and would make sense to fix both at the same time | 12:08 |
| Kano | the headers are installed, that dir is new and missing | 12:08 |
| Kano | http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/ubuntu-karmic.git;a=tree;f=include/acpi;h=5ef3a2cd591223bf069be60037f2c576023752aa;hb=HEAD | 12:08 |
| Kano | thats new | 12:08 |
| apw | bang all that info in a bug and let me know the number | 12:09 |
| Kano | but somehow i do not even see that acpica subdir in it... | 12:10 |
| apw | the directories which get put in there are selected manually | 12:11 |
| Kano | i guess that acpica sub dir inside acpi is created when you compile it | 12:15 |
| Kano | or it is completely missing there as it is in drivers/acpi/acpica/acconfig.h | 12:17 |
| Kano | but fglrx needs those includes somehow | 12:17 |
| IntuitiveNipple | apw: ping (re bug #337929) | 12:19 |
| ubot3 | Malone bug 337929 in linux-backports-modules-2.6.28 "ieee80211_regdom=EU now causes oops after latest update" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/337929 | 12:19 |
| apw | IntuitiveNipple, hi ... wassup? | 12:20 |
| IntuitiveNipple | apw: got a couple of minutes to discuss ^^^ | 12:20 |
| apw | sure | 12:20 |
| IntuitiveNipple | apw: I debugged it last evening based on max's oops log and building the same version lbm and tracing the disassembly. | 12:21 |
| apw | ok, what did yo ufind | 12:22 |
| apw | can't say i've done much with it as yet | 12:22 |
| IntuitiveNipple | apw: It got to the point I was bog/bug-eyed and not clear in my thinking because I chased down several false trails, *but* I think the reason for the bug is an off-by-one or out-of-bounds write issue | 12:22 |
| apw | ok makes sense | 12:23 |
| rtg | IntuitiveNipple: I think you ought to be able to produce the same result with 2.6.29. If thats the case, you could annoy the upstream guys with this bug. | 12:23 |
| IntuitiveNipple | The crux of the issue *seems* to be that in wiphy_update_regulatory() at the end is a test on wiphy->reg_notifier | 12:24 |
| IntuitiveNipple | If that is non-zero it is expected to be a function call-back pointer | 12:24 |
| apw | and what we putting in there | 12:25 |
| IntuitiveNipple | I may be wrong here because I was getting tired, but I'm pretty sure what is happening is in the wiphy struct that pointer is stored immediately after the bands[xxx] array pointers, and the value in it is 0x00000004 - I *think* bands[xxxxx] is going out of bounds and writing into reg_notifier | 12:25 |
| IntuitiveNipple | causing the attempt to call the function | 12:26 |
| apw | that would be bad ... will have a look | 12:26 |
| IntuitiveNipple | It's annoying to trace, I got lost in all the back-n-forth. | 12:27 |
| IntuitiveNipple | My other question about it is, find out what max has in the module options setting - is the setting he has for the lbm_cw_cfg80211 module or cfg80211 | 12:27 |
| apw | yeah its not at all clear fromt ehb ug | 12:28 |
| apw | though he's not dumb | 12:28 |
| apw | it should fail to laod if its for the normal module | 12:28 |
| apw | you filed the bug for that one i think | 12:28 |
| === Omegamoon is now known as Omegamoon|work | ||
| IntuitiveNipple | Because there is another potential issue I discovered: when we have OLD_REGULATORY enabled *and* CRDA in use, there's some unusual code paths and potential forced changes to the domain/bands that could potentially lead to this issue. I didn't find evidence of that, but had the suspicion | 12:29 |
| IntuitiveNipple | No, you misunderstand me... I was wondering if the module option was being picked up by lbm_cw_cfg80211 even though it is set for cfg80211. I wondered that because at one point I was doubting the symbol munging | 12:30 |
| Keybuk | apw: yes | 12:30 |
| IntuitiveNipple | Later I resolved some of those doubts but... :) | 12:31 |
| apw | Keybuk, i forget what i asked, damn | 12:31 |
| Keybuk | apw: whether I said booting with ondemand was slower | 12:31 |
| apw | ahh yes, thanks | 12:31 |
| apw | Keybuk, that needs recording somewhere so we don't think its a good idea to undo it again | 12:32 |
| Keybuk | do we have somewhere where we record kernel config decisions? | 12:32 |
| apw | i am suspecting not, and that we should | 12:32 |
| apw | rtg do we have a wiki page with anything about our config that you remember? | 12:33 |
| rtg | apw: we did something for the last UDS, but I've lost track of it. | 12:33 |
| apw | yeha we did didn't we | 12:34 |
| apw | we could do with a meta something pointing to that | 12:34 |
| apw | and listing generaly things like this | 12:34 |
| IntuitiveNipple | was it this? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Specs/BootPerformance | 12:35 |
| IntuitiveNipple | which links to: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/2.6.28-2-generic-config | 12:35 |
| apw | yeah that later one | 12:35 |
| tjaalton | apw: ok, adding the usb id in hso.c makes it load the module, but it still says "Not our interface", grr | 12:37 |
| Kano | rtg: http://kanotix.com/files/kernel/unused-patches/2.6.29-ubuntu-aufs-compile-fix.patch | 12:40 |
| Kano | rtg: that patch works against current git, please commit | 12:41 |
| apw | Keybuk, ok have recorded it here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KernelConfig | 12:43 |
| mdz | apw: can I get an update on bug 319825? it's in progress / assigned to you | 12:48 |
| ubot3 | Malone bug 319825 in linux "acer_wmi in Jaunty on Aspire One exposes non-functional (always disabled) rfkill device" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/319825 | 12:48 |
| smb_tp | mdz, I believe the current state is that we are intending to selectively disable the software rfkil for the aa1 | 12:50 |
| mdz | smb_tp: thanks, so it should be fixed shortly after beta? | 12:50 |
| smb_tp | mdz, Yes | 12:51 |
| apw | mdz. it looks very much like t | 12:51 |
| apw | the rfkill is not required, and we will want to quirk it away for this device | 12:51 |
| apw | oh what smb_tp said ... doh | 12:51 |
| smb_tp | apw, sorry I thought I jump in for you | 12:52 |
| apw | i have half a patch to do that. need to clean it up and get smb_tp to re-test | 12:52 |
| apw | smb_tp, no was fine, just not reading whats in front of me | 12:52 |
| rtg | apw: I'm feeling dumb this morning. How do I rebase a branch _onto_ master, assuming I've checked out the branch under consideration? | 13:03 |
| apw | is you want all the non common commits then its just git rebase master | 13:03 |
| apw | if you are doing a rebase of the top 20 commits from here to master | 13:03 |
| apw | its git rebase --onto master <last commit before the ones you want> <branch name> | 13:04 |
| rtg | apw: where '<last commit before the ones you want>' is on the branch ? | 13:05 |
| apw | yeah, say you want the last three then its the pointer to the commit before those | 13:05 |
| apw | HEAD~4 sort of thing | 13:05 |
| rtg | apw: ok, thats a bit more intuitive | 13:05 |
| apw | for next time you can tag the new place | 13:06 |
| apw | ie tag master now with 'base-point' | 13:06 |
| apw | and then it become git rebase --onto master base-point <branch> | 13:06 |
| rtg | apw: ok, that ain't working for me. what I want is to take the 4 extra commits that I have on my branch and plop them on top of master. 'git checkout lp152626;git rebase --onto master HEAD~4 lp152626' didn't do the right thing. | 13:11 |
| apw | hrm what did it do instead? | 13:12 |
| rtg | apw: it sis some shit, but not what I wanted. master did not end up with those 4 commits. | 13:12 |
| rtg | s/sis/did/ | 13:12 |
| apw | hrm, that should be the right incantion as far as i understand the world | 13:13 |
| apw | it should reset to master, then move the commits which git log HEAD~4..lp152626 would have shown | 13:13 |
| apw | if you have the text it produced on your window i'd like to see it | 13:14 |
| rtg | apw: if I checkout master, HEAD is _not_ one of the commits from the branch. | 13:14 |
| apw | right, but its supposed to be expanded before the command starts | 13:14 |
| rtg | apw: here it is exactly: | 13:15 |
| * apw goes test | 13:15 | |
| rtg | rtg@lochsa:~/jaunty/kern/ubuntu-jaunty$ git rebase --onto master HEAD~4 lp152626 | 13:15 |
| rtg | First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it... | 13:15 |
| rtg | Applying Revert Staging: at76_usb: update drivers/staging/at76_usb w/ mac80211 port | 13:15 |
| rtg | Applying Staging: at76_usb: fix bugs introduced by "Staging: at76_usb: cleanup dma on stack issues" | 13:15 |
| rtg | Applying Staging: at76_usb: Add support for OQO Model 01+ | 13:15 |
| rtg | Applying UBUNTU: Enabled drivers/staging/at76_usb | 13:15 |
| apw | and are those 4 commits the ones you wanted? | 13:15 |
| rtg | yep | 13:15 |
| apw | so that looks like it did the right thing to me | 13:15 |
| rtg | should I be _on_ master when I rebase? | 13:15 |
| apw | nope on lp152626 | 13:16 |
| apw | and you should end up on thre still | 13:16 |
| apw | ie the lpNNN is modified to be based on master | 13:16 |
| rtg | correct, but none of those commits ended up in master anywhere | 13:16 |
| apw | right master is not modified | 13:17 |
| apw | you asked for this branch to be remade relative to master | 13:17 |
| apw | now it will merge into master as a fast-forward | 13:17 |
| rtg | apw: no, what I want is for the unique commits in the branch to get plopped on top of master. | 13:17 |
| apw | ok there is no single command to do that that i know of | 13:18 |
| apw | what i would do is the rebase that you did | 13:18 |
| apw | and then git checkout master; git merge lpNNNN | 13:18 |
| apw | and it should simply fast-forward master | 13:18 |
| apw | and you are done | 13:18 |
| rtg | I really dislike merging. | 13:19 |
| apw | as a complete asside from the man page the last lpNNNN on the rebase is optional as you are on there | 13:19 |
| apw | rtg rigth, but it won't be a merge | 13:19 |
| apw | if it makes a merge, ie. does not say fast-forward then it went wrong | 13:19 |
| apw | and in the fast-forward case master is effectivly | 13:19 |
| apw | git reset --hard lpNNNN | 13:19 |
| apw | git merge which says fast-forward is not a merge at all | 13:20 |
| rtg | apw: the merge appears to have done what I wanted. How do I get rid of the 'Merge branch' message? It doesn't mean anything outside of my local repo | 13:21 |
| apw | did it not say fast-forward? | 13:22 |
| apw | there will be no merge commit in that case | 13:22 |
| apw | if there is a merge commit it did not do what you wanted | 13:22 |
| apw | as you just rebased lpNNN onto master, ie it should be relative to master and based on master | 13:22 |
| rtg | apw: nope, it did not say fast-forward. | 13:22 |
| apw | a merge cannot be anything other than a fast-forwar | 13:23 |
| apw | if it makes a merge life has gone bad | 13:23 |
| apw | the way i do an update is as follows | 13:23 |
| apw | git checkout master | 13:23 |
| rtg | which is why I dislike merges. maybe I'll just go with cherry-picking | 13:23 |
| apw | git merge origin/master | 13:23 |
| apw | git checkout lpNNN; git rebase master | 13:23 |
| apw | git checkout master; git merge lpNNN | 13:24 |
| apw | none of that ever should make a real merge commit, ever | 13:24 |
| apw | and then push | 13:24 |
| apw | the first two make my master the same as upstream. git checkout master; git reset --hard origin/master in effect | 13:25 |
| apw | then i get my branch connected to the tip of master, and then merge it in | 13:25 |
| apw | and that can never be a real merge | 13:25 |
| rtg | apw: ok, that worked as expected. I think its the 'git checkout lpNNN; git rebase master' step that syncs the root commit tree | 13:25 |
| cooloney_ | apw, i submitted the patch to fix that missing files to remove | 13:26 |
| apw | right that line is rebuiliding things from master upwards | 13:26 |
| apw | then it can only ever be a ff of master | 13:26 |
| apw | by definition, and thus merge will do the right thing | 13:26 |
| apw | the reason i use merge instead of reset, is if i have done something wrong | 13:26 |
| apw | i get a merge commit and go OOOPS and can unpick it easily | 13:26 |
| apw | cooloney_, sounds good | 13:28 |
| === cooloney_ is now known as cooloney | ||
| cooloney | apw, my nick is a typo. -:)) | 13:29 |
| apw | heh | 13:29 |
| IntuitiveNipple | This works for me with master=1,2,5 wip=3,4 ... git rebase --onto master HEAD~2 wip ends up with 1,2,5,3,4 | 13:29 |
| cooloney | actually, it takes me a long time to recompile the jaunty kernel and tested it on my amd64 machine | 13:30 |
| Kano | rtg: that patch works against current git, please commit | 13:32 |
| Kano | err, did not want to repeat it ;) but would be nice if you would do | 13:32 |
| Kano | i checked that the driver/acpi/acpia makefile is in the header package but no header | 13:33 |
| apw | right headers other than those which are exposed via the official userspace headers are manually selected | 13:33 |
| apw | file a bug asking for them and we can get then in there | 13:33 |
| Kano | apw: tell me where to add those | 13:34 |
| Kano | then i will try | 13:34 |
| apw | do you have a fobia of bug trackers? | 13:34 |
| rtg | Kano: I've already said that _if_ aufs is enabled, it won't happen until _after_ I talk to the installer people about upstream alternatives. | 13:34 |
| Kano | that kernel is not released, so how to make a bug against it | 13:34 |
| apw | there is a bug in progress right now to re-add some headers which are missing | 13:34 |
| apw | it would go in the same spot, there is a commit in the hardy tree to export | 13:35 |
| apw | some drm headers for lum | 13:35 |
| Kano | rtg: you can use something else,but what hurts if a module is built? | 13:35 |
| apw | it will be similar to those | 13:35 |
| Kano | the module works | 13:35 |
| Kano | if you want to fix unionfs or use whatever that is not important | 13:35 |
| Kano | but it is needed to have a least one of those modules to build live images | 13:36 |
| apw | kano, the patch to put the first set of headers in has this subject: UBUNTU: Copy header files for various kernel media | 13:37 |
| Kano | ok, found it, will try | 13:39 |
| Kano | mandriva simply adds all .h files to the devel package | 13:42 |
| Kano | apw: can you tell me how to disable the virtual package when you build the server kernel? | 13:43 |
| apw | not sure there is any way without editing the configs | 13:44 |
| apw | that makes the thing double in size, i have already starrted the discussion on whether that is acceptable | 13:44 |
| Kano | i see no real reason to have got the same kernel in 2 packages | 13:45 |
| Kano | if it is stripped from some modules or not, that does not really matter | 13:46 |
| NCommander | rtg, ping, I'd like to discuss with you changing the lpia config to match that of the i386, especially w.r.t. to CONFIG_ATA which should hopefully fix d-i on lpia; unfortunately, making that config change would cause an ABI bump, so I'm not sure the best solution. Any ideas? | 14:01 |
| apw | IntuitiveNipple, which version of lbm were you seeng this regulatory oops with? | 14:07 |
| IntuitiveNipple | I haven't reproduced it 'in real life' - I was reverse-engineering the oops in the report, using the same build as max reported (2.6.28-8 I think?) | 14:09 |
| IntuitiveNipple | That's my next step. I've just put a build-server together to produce custom debug builds | 14:11 |
| apw | i jsut tried it here on 2.6.28-11 and it lets me do it | 14:11 |
| apw | and it also even seems to work | 14:11 |
| IntuitiveNipple | is your module-list comparable to the list in the oops report? | 14:11 |
| apw | i am only loading the base cfg driver which explodes | 14:12 |
| rtg | NCommander: send a pull request to the k-t list. I assume you've coordinated this request with sconklin ? | 14:12 |
| apw | IntuitiveNipple, the problem is is don't have an ath9k ... so its not 100% trivial to test | 14:13 |
| apw | IntuitiveNipple, i am not convinced that this is the call at the bottom of the function btw | 14:14 |
| sconklin | rtg, NCommander: no. This would be a good one to review at the sprint, since it falls right into the netbook repo changeover | 14:14 |
| NCommander | rtg, no, I've need working out what specifically has gone boom with d-i on lpia, and I got pointed to you. | 14:14 |
| apw | as the fault is not a jump to 0x000004 but a data reference to 0x00004 | 14:14 |
| NCommander | sconklin, I have a branch which has the updated config, but I'm not sure what to do about the ABI bump (its too large to ignore, since a lot of things move around, and a LOT of new symbols ...) | 14:15 |
| sconklin | NCommander: that's why it needs to be reviewed by the kernel-team mailing list, an ABI bump touches a lot of projects at the moment. | 14:16 |
| sconklin | so please do a git-format-patch, and send that to the mailing list. Which hardy repo is your change against? (I hate that I even have to ask that) | 14:17 |
| NCommander | sconklin, er, this is jaunty. | 14:17 |
| NCommander | not hardy | 14:17 |
| sconklin | NCommander: Oh, well then that's a lot easier. Still send a patch to the mailing list, but it's much less complicated from a project management view | 14:18 |
| NCommander | sconklin, sure, I haven't finished doing a test build with the bumped ABI, so I'll probably push it in an hour or so | 14:18 |
| sconklin | NCommander: cool, thanks | 14:19 |
| rtg | sconklin: why are we caring about Jaunty lpia? do we have products based on it? | 14:19 |
| apw | IntuitiveNipple, bah no this is only triggered if you have a card reporting a phy | 14:21 |
| IntuitiveNipple | ahhh, what hardware were you testing on? | 14:22 |
| * NCommander sighs | 14:22 | |
| NCommander | EE: Missing modules (start begging for mercy) | 14:22 |
| apw | something without wifi :) | 14:22 |
| sconklin | No, I only care about jaunty lpia because 1) I'm responsible in a general sense for lpia maintenance and 2) Future development projects will soon be based on jaunty. There's nothing in progress that would affect a decision about lpia in jaunty. | 14:22 |
| NCommander | Now what do I do? | 14:22 |
| IntuitiveNipple | apw: :p | 14:22 |
| apw | add a modules.ignore file listing the modukes wh | 14:22 |
| apw | which are gone to the abi directory | 14:23 |
| apw | IntuitiveNipple, heh i tried :) | 14:23 |
| rtg | NCommander: I'm not at all interested in ABI bumping config changes for no particular reason, other then homogenizing i386 and lpia | 14:23 |
| IntuitiveNipple | apw: I'll carry on with the debug once I've got the server to behave... installed Jaunty on it earlier, great. Then decided to move the live /var to a separate LVM, but now, for some reason, mountkernfs.sh fails to mount the varrun and varlock tmpfs so networking doesn't start. Interesting Times. | 14:24 |
| apw | do you have the h/w ? | 14:25 |
| IntuitiveNipple | apw: Yeah... tons of it | 14:25 |
| apw | heh one day i need to sit you down with some beer ... | 14:25 |
| IntuitiveNipple | orange juice is better for you :) | 14:25 |
| IntuitiveNipple | right... back to the cold windy shed to fix the server :( | 14:26 |
| apw | IntuitiveNipple, ok i think i have found a very compelling bug | 14:38 |
| apw | i will build a fixed version (i hope) and upload it for testing | 14:39 |
| IntuitiveNipple | The lbm_cw_cfg80211 ? | 14:39 |
| apw | the regulatory oops in in lbm yes. | 14:40 |
| apw | think i can see how it can happen | 14:40 |
| apw | not that i can trigger it without an ath5k | 14:40 |
| apw | will write it up in the patch, so you can see what i found | 14:41 |
| IntuitiveNipple | ok :) | 14:41 |
| rtg | IntuitiveNipple: speaking of wireless, I think huaxu.wan@linux.intel.com awaits an updated patch from you for the rfkill oops. | 14:51 |
| IntuitiveNipple | rtg: Apparently the whole rfkill patch series isn't upstream yet. I got the impression the alternate work-around was being done | 14:52 |
| IntuitiveNipple | rtg: it's still sloppy programming having work queued after the module is exiting | 14:54 |
| rtg | IntuitiveNipple: Helmut's comment didn't make _any_ sense to me. Regardless, we still have this problem for 2.6.28. | 14:54 |
| rtg | IntuitiveNipple: I think it goes a bit beyond sloppy :) | 14:55 |
| IntuitiveNipple | rtg: I'll test a V2 of my patch for you, and get it posted to the list | 14:55 |
| IntuitiveNipple | rtg: I was trying to be polite, since we're being logged :D | 14:55 |
| * maxb waves: I may not be immediately responsive, but I'm semi-around if you want testing for that lbm regulatory oops | 14:55 | |
| IntuitiveNipple | maxb: whilst you're here. The module option... is it "options lbm_cw_cfg80211 ieee802.... " ? | 14:56 |
| maxb | ieee80211_regdom=EU | 14:59 |
| IntuitiveNipple | maxb: this is in /etc/modprobe.d/options.conf ? I want to verify the module name specified is lbm_cw_cfg80211 | 15:02 |
| maxb | Yes (I may have had one of the underscores as a hyphen, but IIUC those are equivalent in module names) | 15:03 |
| IntuitiveNipple | no, that's fine. I had a suspicion it was matching on cfg8011 because the symbol munging looked 'off' but that answers that one :) | 15:05 |
| Kano | rtg: cp -a drivers/acpi/acpica/*.h $(indep_hdrdir)/drivers/acpi/acpica | 15:39 |
| Kano | please add that | 15:39 |
| Kano | mainly for fglrx | 15:40 |
| Kano | 2.6.29 only | 15:40 |
| Kano | you just added some others, i never needed em but why not. | 15:43 |
| mjg59 | What the fuck is fglrx doing consuming stuff from acpica? | 15:49 |
| mjg59 | That's so far outside the exported API it's not even funny | 15:49 |
| Kano | well there is no official patch for 2.6.29 + fglrx, but the unofficial ones needs it | 15:53 |
| mjg59 | Then it's very, very broken | 15:53 |
| Kano | i guess you have to wait 3 month for a real one ;) | 15:53 |
| Kano | when 2.6.30 out or so *g* | 15:54 |
| mjg59 | The only code that should be using the acpica headers is acpica itself | 15:54 |
| mjg59 | There's defined exported interfaces for interacting with the acpica code | 15:55 |
| Kano | you are free to create a better 2.6.29 patch | 15:55 |
| Kano | if you do that, no problem | 15:56 |
| Kano | what would be the include line for something that is in driver dir <acpi.. > does not seem to work | 16:05 |
| mjg59 | There isn't one | 16:06 |
| mjg59 | You can't #include stuff that's not in the exported API | 16:06 |
| Kano | well ../drivers works ;) | 16:07 |
| mjg59 | If you're inside the source tree, yes | 16:07 |
| mjg59 | But that means you're doing something wrong | 16:07 |
| Kano | mjg59: it is not my fglrx patch, how about providing one? | 16:09 |
| mjg59 | All I'm saying is that the code is horribly roken | 16:09 |
| mjg59 | I'm not interested in rewriting stuff for a closed driver | 16:09 |
| mjg59 | Oh, wow, this code is horrific | 16:16 |
| mjg59 | It changes internal kernel state without any locking | 16:17 |
| mjg59 | Utterly, utterly insane | 16:17 |
| mjg59 | Kano: It can't be fixed without having the soure code to the binary component | 16:18 |
| mjg59 | But it's also racy and likely to cause oopses under certain circumstanes | 16:19 |
| Kano | well those parts are only the the wrapper | 16:22 |
| mjg59 | So? | 16:23 |
| Kano | couldnt you fix that part? | 16:24 |
| mjg59 | No | 16:24 |
| mjg59 | Not without modifying the closed part | 16:25 |
| apw | IntuitiveNipple, pushed the LBM packages for bug #337929, URL is in the bug | 16:54 |
| ubot3 | Malone bug 337929 in linux-backports-modules-2.6.28 "ieee80211_regdom=EU now causes oops after latest update" [Medium,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/337929 | 16:54 |
| apw | if you have a test bed, then it would be good if you can test | 16:54 |
| rtg | apw: I'd kind of like to see the patch too, can you attach it to the LP report? | 16:59 |
| apw | rtg its in the rookery link | 16:59 |
| * maxb wonders if apw meant to publish udebs, not debs ? | 17:00 | |
| maxb | and empty udebs, at that | 17:00 |
| IntuitiveNipple | apw: I was just off out. I'll take a look later :) | 17:00 |
| apw | maxb, no he did not. arrg | 17:00 |
| * apw goes hit the build system with larger hammers | 17:01 | |
| maxb | hehe | 17:01 |
| IntuitiveNipple | well that'll fix it for sure! | 17:01 |
| apw | rtg, does one need anything other than the headers as reported as build deps to build lbm? | 17:01 |
| * maxb will fetch coffee and then build locally | 17:02 | |
| rtg | apw: that patch is kind of a stop-gap measure, which will disappear when next LBM is updated. Can you bug folks on linux-wireless as well? | 17:02 |
| apw | maxb, cool. will try and resolve why my build are bust | 17:02 |
| rtg | apw: just the kernel headers | 17:02 |
| apw | rtg, sure this is just to get this tested by those with the issue | 17:02 |
| apw | if its works, i will propose a cleaner version upstream | 17:02 |
| apw | FATAL: Could not load /lib/modules/2.6.28-11-generic/modules.dep: No such file or directory | 17:03 |
| apw | i am getting those in the build ... yet the build doesn't complain | 17:03 |
| apw | does one need the kernel installed too? | 17:03 |
| rtg | apw: its just bitchy, but build anyway | 17:03 |
| apw | heh nice | 17:04 |
| apw | who chose ^Q for blow my application away violently, and ^W for close this window and keep running | 17:05 |
| IntuitiveNipple | apw: I built lbm against just the headers | 17:06 |
| apw | dpkg-deb: --extract takes at most two arguments (.deb and directory) | 17:06 |
| apw | Type dpkg-deb --help for help about manipulating *.deb files; | 17:06 |
| apw | Type dpkg --help for help about installing and deinstalling packages. | 17:06 |
| apw | make[1]: *** [do-binary-udebs] Error 2 | 17:06 |
| apw | make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/apw/local/git2/ubuntu-jaunty-lbm' | 17:06 |
| apw | make: *** [binary-udebs] Error 2 | 17:06 |
| apw | dpkg-buildpackage: failure: fakeroot debian/rules binary gave error exit status 2 | 17:06 |
| apw | dpkg -x $(ls ../linux-backports-modules-$i\_*i386.deb) \ | 17:06 |
| apw | i _HATE_ debian packaging | 17:06 |
| rtg | apw: c;ean out the .debs in the directory above ubuntu-jaunty-lbm | 17:07 |
| apw | thats soooo annoying | 17:08 |
| rtg | apw: I'll fix it | 17:08 |
| apw | rtg you are a scolar ... pints++ | 17:08 |
| apw | EOVERFLOW | 17:08 |
| rtg | apw: I've done it several times now, but evidently missed this one. | 17:09 |
| apw | we have a large number of packages sadly | 17:09 |
| apw | and annoyingly i've fixed my kernels build to ship the branch into a nice clean empty build directory separated from all other build to avoid this ever happening | 17:09 |
| apw | but the automation doesn't work for this thing | 17:10 |
| apw | yet anyhow | 17:10 |
| IntuitiveNipple | I've been setting up a cross-compiling distributed build server network. hopefully it'll cut build times down and increase the range I can work with. | 17:11 |
| maxb | IntuitiveNipple: fancy! What software are you using? I looked at buildd and cringed a bit | 17:12 |
| apw | i do something similar using a couple of bigger servers | 17:12 |
| apw | and my laptop can also be a client of itself | 17:13 |
| IntuitiveNipple | maxb: distcc and gcc | 17:13 |
| IntuitiveNipple | What I'm trying to do is create a package to manage it all for deployment to EC2 | 17:13 |
| maxb | Ah, compile farm, rather than package building network | 17:13 |
| IntuitiveNipple | maxb: both | 17:13 |
| IntuitiveNipple | but cross-compilation is the biggest hurdle to solve | 17:14 |
| apw | IntuitiveNipple, maxb, ok hopefully there are some actual .deb's at that URL now | 17:20 |
| rtg | apw: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/ubuntu-jaunty-lbm.git;a=commit;h=3988ab032ae12e86da8228945299bc4cd84f4f95 | 17:24 |
| apw | rtg most excellent | 17:24 |
| rtg | apw: when did you last update from the LBM repo? I pushed the current wireless-testing about 1.5 hours ago. | 17:25 |
| apw | ahh crap about 2.5 hours ago | 17:25 |
| apw | though the code in error was the same in upstream testing | 17:26 |
| maxb | Fortunately I updated *my* lbm before I started my build :-) | 17:26 |
| apw | so i belive the issue is till there and the fix the same | 17:26 |
| maxb | rebooting with apw's patch now | 17:26 |
| apw | fingers crossed | 17:26 |
| maxb | apw: well.... wifi worked.... but I don't see your printk either | 17:34 |
| apw | ? | 17:35 |
| apw | hrm | 17:35 |
| apw | you got the appropriate option? | 17:35 |
| apw | or in-appropriate in this case | 17:35 |
| maxb | So it's possible something unrelated in the latest wireless-testing/compat-wireless fixed the bug | 17:35 |
| apw | yep is possible | 17:35 |
| apw | maxb, perhaps try the module i built which should have missed that update | 17:36 |
| maxb | I'll fetch your .deb *without* those changes and see if that helps, and build the latest without your patch | 17:36 |
| apw | maxb, sound plan, thanks | 17:36 |
| maxb | ah, yup, now I see your printk | 17:42 |
| apw | hrm. so it may be fixed some other way now | 17:46 |
| apw | ok will take that to look at | 17:46 |
| maxb | Build of master-2009-03-24 for verification is in progress | 17:48 |
| apw | maxb, thanks a lot | 17:56 |
| * maxb gets the do-binary-udebs error you got, and says bad things about the buildsystem | 17:57 | |
| * apw hands maxb a hand full of rm | 17:58 | |
| rtg | maxb: buildsystem issues fixed and pushed | 17:59 |
| maxb | apw: Confirming bug gone (or at least, no longer reproducing) in unpatched ubuntu-jaunty-lbm.git, i.e. master-2009-03-24 | 18:06 |
| apw | maxb, thanks ... grumble... should have ignored it for longer | 18:07 |
| apw | rtg are we looking to have an lbm update shortly give you are updating it | 18:07 |
| Kano | rtg: how about a patched drm radeon driver for 2.6.29? | 18:19 |
| Kano | anything against that? | 18:19 |
| yago | hi all people. I would like ask if is it possible make a kernel write all in "ada"? | 21:30 |
| tannewt | could someone enlighten me about the correlation between linux version numbers in ubuntu and the version numbers released on kernel.org? | 21:56 |
| tannewt | ubuntu released version 2.6.27.7.11 before upstream released 2.6.27.7 | 21:56 |
| johanbr | the ".7" in those two kernels have no relation to each other | 21:58 |
| tannewt | johanbr: ah, that makes sense, shouldn't it be part of the package revision then? | 22:01 |
| johanbr | tannewt: no, the Ubuntu ".7" is increased whenever the ABI changes. | 22:03 |
| tannewt | johanbr: based on patches? | 22:04 |
| johanbr | yes | 22:04 |
| tannewt | johanbr: okay, are there any packages the correspond more closely to upstream numbers? | 22:04 |
| johanbr | there is a build service that builds packages of the upstream kernel | 22:05 |
| johanbr | if that's what you're looking for | 22:05 |
| johanbr | if you'd like to know which 2.6.27.X upstream kernel has been included in the ubuntu kernel, you'll have to read the changelog. | 22:06 |
| tannewt | johanbr: ah, okay, I'm studying the mgiration of packages from upstream to downstream and like to assume version number correlations | 22:07 |
| johanbr | tannewt: alright. Keeping an eye on the ubuntu kernel mailing list can also be helpful. | 22:13 |
| tannewt | johanbr: thanks for the tip but I'm automating it all, I'll just note it'll be wrong ;-D | 22:14 |
| johanbr | oh :) | 22:14 |
| tannewt | johanbr: pretty interesting stuff, also have gripes about ubuntu version numbers that include the word "really" :-) | 22:17 |
| johanbr | tannewt: I think those are a trick to fool the build system. | 22:19 |
| tannewt | johanbr: I believe that, a way of dealing with weird version numbers like I'm trying to deal with | 22:20 |
| johanbr | if a kernel is uploaded with too high a version number, I think the build machines won't accept a kernel with the correct (lower) version number, so that's why | 22:23 |
| johanbr | or something like that | 22:23 |
| tannewt | hmm, weird | 22:28 |
| maxb | tannewt: It's not really weird. Fundamentally, version numbers can't go backwards. | 23:34 |
| maxb | The 'really' hack is just about the only way to accomplish that when an upstream version must be reverted. | 23:34 |
| maxb | I agree it's ugly though | 23:34 |
| maxb | Debian has epoch's for this purpose, but Ubuntu can't use them without sacrificing all possibility of automatedly syncing the package from Debian again in the future | 23:35 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!