[03:30] <EruditeHermit> hello, if I build a kernel and then later I change the code for one module in the tree
[03:31] <EruditeHermit> is it possible to create ubuntu package of the kernel without recompiling the whole tree?
[04:01] <EruditeHermit> also, whenever I build my own kernel and use the ubuntu packaging method, it always errors out when I try to install the resulting deb package
[04:08] <FireCrotch> Hello, everyone!  I'm interested in helping with solving a bug (#271706), which requires that a quirk be added to the kernel for this piece of hardware.  I think I know how to solve it, from looking at the relevant source here: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/input/keyboard/atkbd.c
[04:09] <FireCrotch> The problem is... I have no idea how to apply the change I would make to the Ubuntu kernel source, or anything like that
[04:09] <FireCrotch> I'm completely new to working with the kernel, but this is a bug that I am very interested in resolving, considering that it affects me.
[04:12] <FireCrotch> Obviously, my ultimate goal is to have the patch applied to the mainline kernel, since the problem does affect users of other distributions
[04:40] <jk-> FireCrotch: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam is a good start for reference
[04:41] <jk-> actually, make that the kernel team knowledge base: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KnowledgeBase
[04:41] <jk-> and https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/GitKernelBuild
[04:42] <jk-> basically, you can just make the change as required before you do the 'make-kpkg ...'
[04:58] <FireCrotch> jk-: Thank you very much for you helpfulness.  I will work on my patch, and when I have it completed, I will likely be back, since I am sure I'll have at least some questions
[08:56] <ghostcube> ok this one is getting a bit stupid
[08:56] <ghostcube> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/466935
[08:56] <ubot3> Malone bug 466935 in linux "No Video Output in Karmic with ID 046d:09a1 Logitech, Inc. QuickCam Communicate MP/S5500" [Undecided,Triaged] 
[08:56] <ghostcube> anyone can handle to check this
[08:57] <ghostcube> its still not working and i need to work with online konferencing in kubuntu
[08:57] <ghostcube> it just works works not works works not
[08:57] <ghostcube> and this startet in karmic
[08:57] <ghostcube> if you cant handle i will change back to jaunty
[09:27] <EruditeHermit> hey, can anyone help me with installing custom built kernels?
[09:27] <EruditeHermit> the process always errors out
[09:41] <_ruben> EruditeHermit: what's the error you get, and which method did you use to build the kernel?
[09:41] <EruditeHermit> I get error 128
[09:41] <EruditeHermit> and I used the instructions from this web page
[09:42] <EruditeHermit> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/GitKernelBuild
[09:43] <_ruben> pastebin the complete output of sudo dpkg -i... command 
[09:43] <EruditeHermit> ok
[09:48] <EruditeHermit> what the heck
[09:48] <EruditeHermit> it just worked for the first time ever
[09:53] <EruditeHermit> i don't know what to say
[09:53] <_ruben> gotta "love" it when that happens
[09:53] <EruditeHermit> it just started working
[09:55] <EruditeHermit> i'll build my next kernel and it won't work again
[09:55] <EruditeHermit> watch
[09:55] <EruditeHermit> =p
[09:55] <EruditeHermit> i'll come back tomorrow if it fails
[09:55] <EruditeHermit> thanks anyway
[09:55] <_ruben> ;)
[09:55] <EruditeHermit> wth I didn't change anything!
[09:55] <EruditeHermit> =p
[11:38] <adnc> hello, i've a strange problem with my usb sound for which i use snd-usb-audio. it gets disconnected and reconnected all the time. i could not find any solution till now, has anyone any suggestions for any documentations that could be helpfull debugging this?
[14:12] <amitk> hmm. My friend switched to a pae kernel, but still doesn't see 4Gb. Any pointers? (dmesg: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/326113/)
[14:12] <amitk> apw: ^
[14:12]  * apw looks
[14:13] <apw> amitk, that e820 doesn't have memory above 4GB so i'd say start with the BIOS settings
[14:14] <apw> not all chipsets can lay the memory out to get 4GB even if they let you put it in
[14:15] <apw> note the last entry in the e820 ends as 100000000 ... ie at 4GB
[14:15] <apw> looking at my machine which has 4GB in it you see memory about that
[14:16] <apw> the e820 seems to expose just 3GB of ram, so the kernel can only use that
[14:17] <ghostcube> some mobos cant remap the things about 3 gig
[14:17] <ghostcube> like some gigabyte boards
[14:17] <apw> ghostcube, yep, and thinkpads have that repulation too
[14:17] <ghostcube> yep
[14:17] <apw> amitk, this is a thinkpad yes: LENOVO TP-7B
[14:18] <apw> what sort is it?
[14:27] <mjg59> apw: That's an X60, so 945. Which has 4GB of physical address space.
[14:27] <apw> so ... unable to actually take 4GB ever then dispite taking the SIMs ... thanks mjg59 
[14:29] <amitk> apw: x60s, sorry got distracted
[14:30] <apw> amitk, classic case of 'supported' meaning "will boot with", rather than "you'll bet benefit from"
[14:31] <mjg59> The X60s specs claim a maximum of 2GB
[14:32] <apw> heh ... well at least they don't lie :)
[14:35] <amitk> well, he does see 3Gb
[14:36] <apw> yep, you are getting lucky there, with only 4GB of physical bits he won't ever see more than 3.5
[14:36] <apw> and that would depend on the bios mappings
[14:36] <amitk> right
[14:39] <amitk> apw: so the BIOS-e820 lines should support more than 0000000100000000 to do 4Gb?
[14:39]  * amitk knows little about e820
[14:39] <apw> the e820 tells you where the memory is mapped physically
[14:40] <apw> so to see more than 4GB usable you need some of it mapped above 4GB physical
[14:40] <apw> as we use space in the 3-4gb range for IO and the likel
[14:41] <amitk> apw: so this limitation will stay even if he upgraded to 64-bit, right?
[14:41] <apw> taking my laptop as an example:
[14:41] <apw> [    0.000000]  BIOS-e820: 00000000bd9ff000 - 00000000bda00000 (usable)
[14:41] <apw> [    0.000000]  BIOS-e820: 0000000100000000 - 0000000140000000 (usable)
[14:42] <apw> i have a bunch of my ram above 4GB
[14:42] <apw> amitk, i believe there is only 4GB of physical space on that chipset, so it can't place 4GB of ram and a bunch of IO space together
[14:42] <apw> in the 4GB of space it has
[14:43] <apw> you may be able to tease more like 3.5GB out of it ... some bios let you set how big the iospace is and whehter ram can appear around it or not
[14:43] <amitk> ok, understanding now. I guess the e820 map resides somewhere in the BIOS?
[14:44] <apw> the bios generates it and passes it over yes
[14:44] <apw> later chipsets generally map 0-3gb of ram to 0-3 physical, and 3-> to 4->
[14:44] <apw> leaving a nice window for IO
[14:45] <amitk> Thanks apw, mjg59 
[14:52] <amitk> apw: nice explanation of the HW limitations: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/16/144
[14:53] <amitk> in the .pdf, that is
[15:01] <apw> yep ... pci express really hurts space wise
[16:51] <tseliot> apw: here I am
[16:51] <apw> yo
[16:51] <apw> tseliot, there is a bug fix for the bcmwl source, which is needed for lucid
[16:52] <apw> and i hear you are 'maintainer' for it
[16:52] <tseliot> yes, I was volunteered :-P
[16:52]  * apw struggles to find the bug #
[16:53] <apw> whats the source package even called?
[16:53] <tseliot> bcmwl
[16:54] <apw> thats not easy to find out ... 
[16:54] <tseliot> not an easy one to pronouce either ;)
[16:55] <apw> heheh ...
[16:55] <apw> arrrgggg where is this bug
[16:57] <apw> i _HATE_ launchpad
[16:58] <Appiah> :)
[16:59] <tseliot> hehe
[17:01] <apw> tseliot, heh seem you applied it which is why i can't find it :)
[17:01] <apw> the one from n-commander
[17:02] <tseliot> apw: right but I forgot to update my bzr branch because launchpad was temporarily down and I ran out of brain memory 
[17:02] <apw> now it all makes sense
[17:02] <apw> brain memory is useless
[17:04] <tseliot> heh
[17:04] <tseliot> I wish I could upgrade it...
[17:08] <tseliot> ok, branch updated
[17:32] <MTecknology> I just did git fetch; git checkout Ubuntu-2.6.31-15.50
[17:32] <MTecknology> I got this -> warning: refname 'Ubuntu-2.6.31-15.50' is ambiguous.
[17:34] <MTecknology> Any ideas what I did wrong, or is that just something I didn't notice happening any other time?
[17:35] <apw> MTecknology, that might imply you have a branch of the same name as the tag?
[17:37] <MTecknology> apw: isn't that the way to update to the new tag?
[17:37] <apw> update what to the new tag?
[17:37] <MTecknology> the git repository
[17:38] <MTecknology> I'm used to bzr so git kind of confuses me, it's like a massive scary beast
[17:38] <apw> MTecknology, its pretty much the same 
[17:38] <apw> but a tag is a tag, and a checkout of that takes you off branch to a floating head
[17:39] <MTecknology> I do git fetch and it tells me this ->    18fec74..ddbc670  master     -> origin/master   and    * [new tag]         Ubuntu-2.6.31-15.50 -> Ubuntu-2.6.31-15.50
[17:39] <apw> yep
[17:39] <MTecknology> I want my head to be Ubuntu-2.6.31-15.50 (the newest)
[17:39] <MTecknology> so git branch Ubuntu-2.6.31-15.50
[17:40] <MTecknology> so git checkout Ubuntu-2.6.31-15.50 *
[17:40] <apw> the git branch command makes a new branch called that pointing to the current head pointer
[17:40] <apw> now you have two mentions
[17:40] <apw> and the error message
[17:40] <apw> to make a new branch pointing to something
[17:40] <apw> git checkout -b <branch name> <what> 
[17:40] <apw> does the job
[17:41] <apw> git checkout -b buildme Ubuntu-2.6.31-15.50
[17:41] <apw> sort fo thing
[17:41] <MTecknology> I keep wondering how much I may have screwed up my branch :P
[17:42] <apw> which branch?
[17:42] <apw> first git keeps a log of what you did and where it was before, git log -g, shows you a time based history of your current branch
[17:42] <MTecknology> the ubuntu kernel
[17:42] <apw> you can't do much harm to it really
[17:43] <apw> if you just want the current version in a branch you can just checkout the branch and reset it to the new tag
[17:43] <apw> git checkout buildme
[17:43] <apw> git reset --hard Ubuntu-xxxx
[17:43] <apw> NOTE: that this does destroy any local changes
[17:43] <MTecknology> HEAD is now at fccba66 UBUNTU: Ubuntu-2.6.31-15.50
[17:44] <MTecknology> I kept a copy of .config separate
[17:44] <MTecknology> and the rest of changes aren't a big deal to me
[17:44] <MTecknology> thanks :)
[17:44] <apw> then you are at the exact equivalent to the tag
[17:44] <MTecknology> for the future, what's the correct way to get myself here?
[17:44] <MTecknology> branch or checkout?
[17:45] <apw> you have local patches on your 'buildme' branch
[17:45] <apw> and we send you a new base version
[17:45] <apw> (i am assuming)
[17:45] <apw> then i would 'git fetch; git rebase Ubuntu-new-tag'
[17:45] <MTecknology> I haven't been patching anything yet - still jsut playing
[17:45] <apw> which lifts up your local changes and puts them back on top
[17:45] <MTecknology> cool :)
[17:47] <MTecknology> When I do try to start fixing kernel bugs, I might really like how git works
[17:47] <apw> its a problem if you are a bzr user as its similar enough to be confusing
[17:48] <apw> though its basically functionally the same as bzr
[17:48] <MTecknology> It seems like git pulls down everything out there when I do git fetch; but it keeps a single head which is what rebase changes(?)
[17:48] <apw> it has the concept of local and remote branches
[17:48] <apw> git branch -r shows you what it is pulling down
[17:48] <apw> also tags come down which point to places
[17:49] <apw> but the tags and remote branches represent 'our' things, and your local branches one or more represent 'your' things
[17:49] <MTecknology> I think I get it
[17:49] <apw> you can have more than one branch associated with the 'working directory' and switch between them
[17:49] <MTecknology> I have to run away now :( - end of class
[17:49] <apw> similar to repository mode in bzr if you have met that
[17:49] <apw> but its on by default
[17:50] <MTecknology> I haven't met it yet, but I'm nearing that point
[17:50] <MTecknology> I'm about to start working on a massive project using bzr so I'll meet it in about 1 month
[17:50] <MTecknology> thanks again :)
[17:56] <WeatherGod> greetings from the bug squad...
[17:56] <WeatherGod> I have a quick question about where to file a particular bug issue
[17:58] <WeatherGod> I have a report of a nvidia video card that won't turn on its fan while using Karmic, but the fan does work using Windows
[17:58] <WeatherGod> is this a kernel issue or something else?
[18:01] <stlsaint> hello all
[18:02] <WeatherGod> they don't seem to be a chatty bunch...
[18:02] <stlsaint> yea im starting to notice
[18:03] <stlsaint> was reading up on wiki page
[18:04] <stlsaint> lo jMyles 
[18:58] <jMyles> Hey stlsaint.
[19:55] <MTecknology> WeatherGod: what's up?
[19:56] <WeatherGod> hi
[19:56] <WeatherGod> I was wondering where I should file a particular bug report
[19:56] <MTecknology> then ask ;)
[19:56] <MTecknology> apw: why do you hate LP?
[19:56] <WeatherGod> this reporter has a fan that isn't working when he is in Ubuntu, but does work when he is in Windows
[19:56] <WeatherGod> note, that this is a GPU fan
[19:57] <MTecknology> where's the bug report?
[19:57] <WeatherGod> bug 484875
[19:57] <ubot3> Malone bug 484875 in nvidia-graphics-drivers-180 "Nvidia GPU overheating on Toshiba P100" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/484875
[19:58] <WeatherGod> I initially moved it to the nvidia drivers package, but the people in the #ubuntu-x room told me that the nvidia driver doesn't control the fan
[19:59] <WeatherGod> personally, I don't know if that is true... because the changelog for the new nvidia driver mentions fan speed control
[20:00] <MTecknology> I think that telling him to file a separate bug was a bad idea
[20:00] <MTecknology> gah... I'll brb
[20:01] <MTecknology> I need to take a quiz
[20:01] <WeatherGod> ok
[20:06] <MTecknology> If it's the same issue, then two different systems but both nvidia geforce can help narrow down the issue
[20:07] <WeatherGod> note, that this is the only bug report by the OR
[20:08] <WeatherGod> so, I should leave it with the nvidia package?
[20:10] <MTecknology> I don't think there's enough information for that
[20:10] <MTecknology> It can definitely be confirmed though
[20:11] <WeatherGod> ok, but are you saying that it should be moved to another package?
[20:11] <MTecknology> I don't know
[20:11] <WeatherGod> what additional information is needed
[20:11] <MTecknology> #ubuntu-bugs can help you better
[20:11] <WeatherGod> I am from there
[20:11] <WeatherGod> they aren't sure what controls the fan of the gpu
[20:12] <MTecknology> I'm not the person to ask - maybe somebody else can peak in and answer
[20:13] <WeatherGod> sorry if I seem a bit... terse... I am just getting bounced around here
[20:13] <WeatherGod> ok
[20:14] <MTecknology> -bugs is supposed to handle assigning bugs to packages
[20:15] <MTecknology> somebody here might know; most people here only worry about the kernel though
[20:15] <WeatherGod> yeah... I know... I am on the bug squad
[20:16] <WeatherGod> we know that regular fans for CPU and such are filed against the kernel, but for the GPU, we don't know if the graphics driver controls that or the kernel
[20:18] <WeatherGod> and it doesn't seem like anyone at #ubuntu-x knows, either
[20:20] <mjg59> If you're using KMS, it's the kernel. If not, it's the X driver.
[20:20] <WeatherGod> KMS?
[20:20] <mjg59> Kernel Modesetting
[20:21] <mjg59> If you're using the nvidia binary driver, give up
[20:21] <WeatherGod> heh
[20:21] <WeatherGod> it is
[20:21] <WeatherGod> even the brand new one
[20:21] <mjg59> Well, you get to file a bug against something that only nvidia has the source code to
[20:22] <WeatherGod> is there even such a way to do that?
[20:23] <WeatherGod> in the meantime, I have asked him to try out the free/open nvidia drivers
[20:23] <WeatherGod> we will see if it works
[20:24] <WeatherGod> also, given that he is using Karmic, is it safe to assume that he is using modesetting?
[20:26] <mjg59> If he's using nvidia on Ubuntu, he's not using kms
[20:26] <WeatherGod> ok
[20:27] <WeatherGod> so, to summarize -- this is strictly a problem with nvidia?
[20:27] <mjg59> If you're using the binary nvidia driver, the only software that controls the graphics hardware is the binary nvidia driver
[20:28] <WeatherGod> mjg59, thank you for clarifying my questions
[20:28] <WeatherGod> I appreciate your help