[02:23] <bernardo> hi
[02:23] <bernardo> what's the difference between the 'lowlatency' and 'realtime' kernels?
[02:23] <bernardo> http://jackschnippes.freeunix.net/index.php/2010/11/04/lowlatency-kernel-and-realtime-kernel-for-ubuntu-10-10-maverick
[09:23] <vish> hi, a patch from fdo was cherry picked for Bug #507148 , but that patch causes Bug #652934 …  it turns out that the cherry-picked patch has now been updated and merged in mainline kernel.. we now need to revert old patch and use the updated the patch..
[09:23] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 507148 in xserver-xorg-video-ati (Ubuntu Lucid) (and 4 other projects) "[lucid] desktop runs out of video memory on ATI Radeon Mobility 7500 (affects: 8) (heat: 46)" [High,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/507148
[09:23] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 652934 in linux (Ubuntu) "[RV515] Guest session causes screen to flicker violently and session is unusable (affects: 2) (heat: 16)" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/652934
[09:41] <apw> vish got a reference to the updated patch?
[09:41] <vish> apw: last comment on Bug #652934 has the commit#
[09:41] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 652934 in linux (Ubuntu) "[RV515] Guest session causes screen to flicker violently and session is unusable (affects: 2) (heat: 16)" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/652934
[09:43] <vish> apw: that was from https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26302 , they mentioned the commit#
[09:43] <ubot2> Freedesktop bug 26302 in Driver/Radeon "[M7 LW] desktop runs out of video memory on ATI Radeon Mobility 7500" [Major,Resolved: fixed]
[09:45] <apw> vish so the fix releases on the flickering bug is not working for you?
[09:46] <apw> oh missread ignore that
[09:46] <vish> apw: yea, i dint have any problems earlier, it causes http://launchpadlibrarian.net/56913353/P1010994.MOV
[09:47] <rsajdok> 
[09:47] <apw> vish which release are you testing on, mavierck?
[09:48] <vish> yup
[09:49] <vish> apw: i had this problem since lucid, but i was told there was a fix for the bug coming in the 'next' kernel update, but it turned out to never fix this issue.. so i had to install all the earlier kernels and test again..
[09:49] <AceLan_> vish: maverick already has 2b66b50b12cabc05f05543e792d4c9c2465d5702, so cherry one more commit 2b66b50b12cabc05f05543e792d4c9c2465d5702 can fix the problem?
[09:50] <vish> AceLan_: maybe... i'm not sure.. i just tested the kernels, dont know what each commit does.. :)
[09:53] <apw> AceLan_, there is a rumour the first commit was also updated
[09:57] <AceLan_> hmm
[09:59] <apw> vish so were you affected by the original bug
[09:59] <AceLan_> I can't see any difference between maverick and upstream kernel on the commit 1e4966cc558d6aac892abeed6434591348103dff and e376573f7267390f4e1bdc552564b6fb913bce76
[10:00] <vish> apw: i have an [RV515] which has the flickering problem, but no issue of running out of memory as in "[lucid] desktop runs out of video memory on ATI Radeon Mobility 7500 "
[10:01] <vish> AceLan_: actually the patch landed in lucid..
[10:01] <apw> AceLan_, the fix which was applied though for that bug was 160ae3be8d42701afc19cf71d6e0d2c0a6160e82
[10:01] <vish> or i can also test .36 again for a couple more days and make [completely] sure it does not cause the problem..
[10:02] <AceLan_> vish: yes, that would be better
[10:03] <vish> AceLan_: sure..  .36 has an issue where X freezes at random, which sometimes prevents me from running a session continuously, hence the minor doubt..  will try again..
[10:03] <vish> a session == my user session
[10:04] <apw> AceLan_, well as things stands we have two commits in maverick which claim to fix the same issue
[10:04] <apw> and only one is upstream right now
[10:06] <AceLan_> apw: no, upstream containes two commit 2b66b50b12 and e376573f72, and in maverick only has e376573f72
[10:07] <apw> AceLan_, no maverick has two commits e376573f72 and 160ae3be8d42701afc19cf71d6e0d2c0a6160e82
[10:07] <apw> the second one where is the one which seems to ahve come from drm-next and looks like it may have been replaced by the first
[10:07] <apw> but we have bot
[10:07] <apw> both
[10:09] <apw> AceLan_, cirtainly we are alos missing the fix to the upstream fix
[10:10] <apw> the simplest solution is to revert the patch we are carrying and pull in the retry fix, and get both sets of people to test the result; /me does that
[10:15] <AceLan_> apw: yes, upstream kernel doesn't have 160ae3be, so remove it should be okay, but I think 2b66b50b12 is important to e376573f72
[10:21]  * AceLan_ dinner&
[10:22] <apw> AceLan_, right indeed i concur with that analysis and is what i am building as a test kernel
[10:44] <AceLan_> apw: cool
[13:24] <Velmont> Some time ago, I saw some patches to make filesystems with UNIX rights able to mount WITHOUT any of those rights. I'm using Ext4 and HFSplus for two external drives, and I don't like that I need to be root in order to use them (because the user ids are different on diff computers). Also; I could just a+rwx everything, but a) it looks ugly (not important :P) b) more importantly, I very often forget, because it's not too easy to remember.
[13:25] <Velmont> Any chance a change like that will be carried by Ubuntu? IIRC the discussion on LKML just died out, some against some for. Can't find the thread right now.
[14:19] <apw> Velmont, i recall it being discussed but i do not recall anything coming of it
[14:20] <Velmont> apw: Yes, just like the LKML-thread.
[14:20] <apw> there is often a feeling expressed that the consumer should not be doing that
[14:21] <Velmont> Using those filesystems?
[14:21] <apw> basically yes, though i can see why one might want to
[14:22] <apw> the resolution i think was a generic uid mapping layer, but i don't think anyone did anything towards it
[14:22] <Velmont> Mm. It's because vfat is not there at all, doesn't play well with big files (which is what I do (video)). And NTFS doesn't "just work" in the same way, -- also NTFS also has such file attributes, so that doesn't help :-)
[19:15] <apw> hrm X just dumped something into the kernel which it did _not_ like, boom
[20:04]  * ogra_ac bets apw just forgot to modprobe unity :P
[20:09] <apw> ogra_ac, its more likely i _did_ modprobe unity :)
[20:15] <ogra_ac> heh
[20:47] <Darxus> Has there been any discussion of including the "automated per tty task groups" patch in natty?  http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2637_video
[22:59] <RAOF> Darxus: That patch has already gone in.
[23:00] <Darxus> RAOF: Saw that on the list.  That's great.  Thanks.