[01:29] <Eric_Elliott> My first IRC use is now.  Where or how do I request a current module be included in Ubu kernel to replace module of 2006?
[03:09] <spO> hi
[03:10] <spO> i did a go clone git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-jaunty.git , git checkout Ubuntu-2.6.28-15.48 , git fetch , but then when i do a make menuconfig  the top of the menu says configuration for Kernel 2.6.28-10  
[03:10] <mjg59> The build scripts set EXTRAVERSION
[03:11] <mjg59> The source just has whatever upstream defined
[03:11] <spO> can you please speak english
[03:12] <spO> the extraversion means that it is what is used?
[03:12] <spO> or the source is what is used>?
[03:13] <mjg59> EXTRAVERSION is the makefile variable that contains the bit after .28
[03:13] <mjg59> The source code defines that as one thing. The Ubuntu build system overrides that definition.
[03:14] <spO> the build system uses extraversion
[03:15] <spO> the source code says it is version 10
[03:15] <spO> err
[03:15] <spO> the source code says it is 15, but the extraversion in the makefile says it is 10
[03:15] <mjg59> Yes
[03:15] <spO> so the build system will use the makefile that says it is 10 and you will get a version 10 kernel?
[03:15] <mjg59> No
[03:15] <spO> even though the source is 15?
[03:16] <spO> you will get a version 15 kernel then?
[03:16] <mjg59> The Ubuntu build system will pass EXTRAVERSION=-15.48 when you use it
[03:16] <spO> because that is what the source is
[03:16] <spO> what about any extra options  that comes with the new version -- 15
[03:16] <mjg59> What are you trying to do?
[03:17] <spO> nothing special
[03:17] <spO> just a custom kernel
[03:17] <mjg59> Then ignore the version numbers
[03:17] <spO> to make my system super duper faster
[03:17] <mjg59> You're going to be ABI incompatible anyway
[03:17] <mjg59> It doesn't matter
[03:17] <mjg59> Also, the time taken to compile the kernel will dwarf any speed gains you get before you have to recompile again because there's a security update
[03:18] <spO> why woudl it be ABI incompatible?
[03:18] <mjg59> Because you'll have made a change that makes it ABI incompatible
[03:19] <spO> because security patches/updates are general?
[03:19] <spO> i mean too general
[03:19] <spO> ie , thye cannot be applied to any custom kernel, in general
[03:19] <mjg59> Kernel security updates replace the entire kernel
[03:19] <spO> what does ABI incompatible mean , i mean how is that useful?
[03:20] <mjg59> The only reason to care about the version number is if you want to carry on using the Ubuntu module packages
[03:20] <mjg59> And you can't use the Ubuntu module packages if you've made any change to the config that affects the kernel's internal data structures
[03:21] <spO> of course you could build all your modules again, all the modules everytime you make a custom kernel, right?
[03:21] <mjg59> Yes
[03:21] <mjg59> But in that case you don't need to care about the ABI string
[03:21] <mjg59> (which is the -15.48 bit)
[03:22] <spO> using modules instead of having it inside the kernel , does that make the system run faster, especially if your system does not load some modules (ie, they are not automatically loaded)
[03:22] <spO> auto loading of modules is usually have people use modules anyways, i guess
[03:23] <mjg59> It saves RAM
[03:23] <mjg59> So, basically, just do what you're doing anyway
[03:23] <mjg59> The different numbers make no difference
[03:24] <spO> how does a s ystem handle a kernel, is the whole of it loaded into ram?
[03:24] <mjg59> Yes
[03:24] <mjg59> And that ram can't be swapped
[03:37] <spO> the best reason to make a custom kernel is proabbyl because you can change the processor family from generic  to core 2
[03:37] <spO> i guess
[04:05] <spO> so without ABI support, i cannot do an "Update Manager" that is in gnome?
[04:05] <spO> or is that mostly somethign different?
[10:01]  * hughhalf yawns
[10:57] <mdz> how badly screwed am I?
[10:57] <mdz> [    6.065259] b43-phy0 ERROR: FOUND UNSUPPORTED PHY (Analog 8, Type 4, Revision 4)
[11:02] <mdz> hmm, seems to be in bcmwl-modaliases, I'll try that
[11:45] <manjo> chroot, kernelbuilds, etc are written up in the wikipage https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KernelMaintenanceStarter
[14:26] <Q-FUNK> greetings!  is the ability to 'cat' the .config enabled on ubuntu kernels?  
[14:26] <Q-FUNK> one bug I reported (bug #396286) appears like it might be ubuntu-specific and I'd like to compare ubuntu's config with the one from someone else for whom vanilla 2.6.31-rc4 works fine.
[14:26] <ubot3> Malone bug 396286 in linux "kernel 2.6.31-generic oops after loading initramfs" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/396286
[14:31] <makke> Q-FUNK: cat /boot/config-`uname -r` there is no /proc/config.gz
[14:31] <Q-FUNK> makke: that only provides a partial config, because of config splitter
[14:32] <Q-FUNK> that's why /proc/config.gz would be useful
[14:46] <ogasawara> JFo: I don't have a specific one generated right now, but you can always take a look at the list of bugs in launchpad
[14:46] <JFo> ok cool
[14:46] <ogasawara> JFo: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bugs
[14:46] <ogasawara> JFo: and then you can use the Advanced search to narrow down that list to for ex just the New bugs
[14:46] <JFo> grazie
[14:46] <JFo> excellent
[14:46] <JFo> :)
[14:47] <ogasawara> JFo: let me know if you have questions.  We're sprinting this week so if you don't hear back from me, shoot me an email
[14:47] <Q-FUNK> ogasawara: is there any info missing for bug #396286 before the team can process the bug?
[14:47] <ubot3> Malone bug 396286 in linux "kernel 2.6.31-generic oops after loading initramfs" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/396286
[14:48] <JFo> no problem ogasawara 
[14:48] <JFo> thanks again
[14:48] <JFo> forgot about the sprint
[14:54] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: you mentioned another person being able to boot the vanilla kernel . . .
[14:54] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: care to give the 2.6.31-rc5 mainline kernel build a quick try
[14:54] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.31-rc5/
[14:55] <Q-FUNK> ogasawara: thanks for the URL.  could the generic URL for the kernel team's PPA be added to the bug filing instructions on LP?
[14:55] <Q-FUNK> yes, I can try it
[14:56] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: you also mentioned wanting to compare the Ubuntu kconfig
[14:56] <Q-FUNK> yes, indeed
[14:56] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: take a look at /boot/config-2.6.31-4-generic
[14:57] <Q-FUNK> ogasawara: that seems to be an incomplete config, due to config splitter.
[15:12] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: what filesystem are you running?
[15:39] <Q-FUNK> ogasawara: ext3
[15:47] <Q-FUNK> is there any repo whre I can find e.g. 2.6.30-10 packages that were released earlier?
[15:47] <Q-FUNK> I'd like to try an incremental upgrade of standard 2.6.30 and 2.6.31 packages until I can spot the exact release that broke it
[16:09] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: lets try to do a rough bisect
[16:09] <Q-FUNK> ogasawara: ok. can you guide me?
[16:09] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: yup, just grabbing the links
[16:10] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: so you mentioned the ubuntu 2.6.30-2 kernel worked
[16:10] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: so lets have you first confirm the mainline 2.6.30 was working
[16:10] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/?C=M;O=D
[16:10] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: that's all of the mainline kernel builds we've done
[16:11] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: so test http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.30/
[16:12] <Q-FUNK> ogasawara: btw, on a really old bug, someone narrowed-down the cause:  bug #241307.  the bug is still valid on more recent kernels as well.
[16:12] <ubot3> Malone bug 241307 in linux "kernel oops during bootup in LTSP" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/241307
[16:13] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: looks like apw is already assigned to that one
[16:14] <Q-FUNK> ogasawara: he probably has his hands full tracking 2.6.31 issues for Karmic already, but since I haven't heard from him since adding that info, I thought that I'd ping back.
[16:16] <Q-FUNK> btw, seems I was momentarily disconnected.  if you have pasted any bisect instructions, I might have missed them
[16:19] <ogasawara> [16:10:13] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: so you mentioned the ubuntu 2.6.30-2 kernel worked
[16:19] <ogasawara> [16:10:32] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: so lets have you first confirm the mainline 2.6.30 was working
[16:19] <ogasawara> [16:10:37] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/?C=M;O=D
[16:19] <ogasawara> [16:10:53] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: that's all of the mainline kernel builds we've done
[16:19] <ogasawara> [16:11:29] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: so test http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.30/
[16:19] <Q-FUNK> ok
[16:20] <Q-FUNK> aren't standard ubuntu releases equivalent to mainline releases and rc releases?
[16:20] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: the Ubuntu kernels are based on mainline kernels, but with some additional patches on top
[16:20] <Q-FUNK> ok
[16:21] <Q-FUNK> so I should try all of the 2.6.30 mainline or just the last one?
[16:22] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: just try 2.6.30 first.  I just want to establish a working mainline kernel for us to bisect from
[16:22] <Q-FUNK> ok
[16:24] <ogasawara> Q-FUNK: after that test 2.6.31-rc1
[16:25] <Q-FUNK> ok
[16:26] <Q-FUNK> 31-rc1 wasn't built for i386
[16:28] <Q-FUNK> I'll use -rc1fix1 instead
[16:29] <Q-FUNK> /~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.31-rc1-fix1
[16:44] <gnarl> Q-FUNK, Yes, this was specially build instead of the automatic one