| === smb` is now known as smb | ||
| === henrix_ is now known as henrix | ||
| lantizia | apw, did you get my pm the other day (updated the bug too) | 09:56 |
|---|---|---|
| apw | lantizia, oss bug ? if so the patches went out today for review | 09:57 |
| lantizia | oh cool you did get my message then :D | 09:58 |
| apw | not any pm, but i saw an email | 10:00 |
| lantizia | all it said was (sent a few hours before that email)... "Off to bed (as I'm sure you already are) - finally got back and home and finished testing... I'm basically reporting that it works very well indeed now using the osspd package from raring on precise and quantal" | 10:11 |
| trailblazerz11 | What's up with 3.9-rc1 mainline build? | 11:10 |
| apw | trailblazerz11, what is wrong with it from your point of view | 11:14 |
| apw | trailblazerz11, a more useful question would have been. "Does anyone know why the mainline build for 3.9-rc1 has no binary packages?" | 11:19 |
| apw | which would have triggered my memory of cking asking me to add bc into the chroots for builds to allow 3.9-rc1 to build for him | 11:19 |
| trailblazerz11 | sorry, thanks for the reply | 11:51 |
| === rsalveti_ is now known as rsalveti | ||
| rtg_ | apw, whats up with the repeated mainline build emails ? 'Mainline Build v3.9-rc1' | 12:35 |
| smb | rtg_, I suppose outfall of attempts to fix the new dependency on bc | 12:38 |
| rtg_ | smb, indeed, guess I'd better get that in the control file | 12:41 |
| smb | rtg_, hm, yeah, would not completely rule out apw working on that too... | 12:41 |
| apw | rtg_, i already added it | 12:42 |
| apw | rtg_, yes it is about doing the builds till they work, which i think this final time they will | 12:42 |
| apw | (it == build-dep: bc) | 12:43 |
| rtg_ | apw, just saw that. guess I'd better get that package added to the chroots | 12:43 |
| apw | rtg_, yeah i've been putting that off, can you add them to precise as well as we build test kernels in the 'previous lts' | 12:43 |
| apw | s/them/bc | 12:43 |
| rtg_ | apw, ack. I'll prolly just do it in general | 12:44 |
| === ara_ is now known as ara | ||
| zyga | hey everyone, I seem to have found a regression in the kernel | 13:22 |
| zyga | 3.8.0-5 works | 13:22 |
| zyga | beyond that I get hangs on boot | 13:22 |
| zyga | and unable to mount /sys/firmware/efivars | 13:22 |
| zyga | I'm checking which of the three kernels that I have actually boots | 13:23 |
| zyga | -10 does not boot to desktop | 13:23 |
| zyga | nor does -11 | 13:23 |
| zyga | how should I proceed / file a bug? | 13:25 |
| zyga | I seem to be able to boot into the recovery mode | 13:25 |
| zyga | the actual filesystem that fails to mount is "/sys/firmware/efi/efivars" | 13:26 |
| zyga | booting hangs on [S]kip or [M]anual | 13:26 |
| zyga | so known good is 3.8.0-5, known bad is -10 | 13:28 |
| zyga | with equally bad -11 | 13:28 |
| * zyga waits around for someone to show up | 13:28 | |
| smb | and pressing "s" probably continues the boot... | 13:28 |
| zyga | smb: yes | 13:28 |
| smb | but yeah, filing a bug would be appreciated | 13:28 |
| zyga | smb: but it does not finish normally, other errors show up and all I get is console in vt1 | 13:29 |
| zyga | smb: note: that's from _recovery_ boot | 13:29 |
| zyga | normal boot just hangs | 13:29 |
| zyga | smb: ubuntu-bug linux-image | 13:29 |
| smb | zyga, just ubuntu-bug linux | 13:30 |
| zyga | k | 13:30 |
| zyga | on -5 now, apport found some bugs, let's see if that's it | 13:30 |
| smb | wondering whether normal boots would continue by pressing s and just not show the message | 13:31 |
| zyga | smb: ubuntu-bug does not work, claims that -5 is not an official package | 13:31 |
| zyga | (bogus obviously) | 13:31 |
| smb | zyga, think it does that if its not the latest one | 13:31 |
| zyga | smb: I have the latest one installed | 13:32 |
| smb | which probably only boots in recovery... if I ccould remember, there is a way to only save the report files... | 13:32 |
| zyga | smb: but the error message is bogus, this _is_ an official package, I _have_ installed it, unless it's checking the one I'm running now | 13:33 |
| zyga | smb: let me see if -11 works with recovery (I tried -10) | 13:33 |
| zyga | ok, on -11, reporting the bug in text mode | 13:35 |
| smb | zyga, think "ubuntu-bug --save=file linux" should allow to write the data to file | 13:35 |
| zyga | oh, wireless crashed the kernel while I was doing that | 13:35 |
| zyga | or just semi-crashed, the report is still going | 13:36 |
| zyga | that's one crappy day for having UDS sessions | 13:36 |
| zyga | I keep getting screen full of kernel backtraces | 13:36 |
| zyga | I keep seeing dots printed, is that still apport? | 13:39 |
| smb | zyga, usually the common rule is not to rely on the latest release (or update) while something important (conference, travel) goes on. But I know that is not very helpful | 13:39 |
| zyga | smb: it's not that bad, I have a desktop that I'm using now but it's distracting from the sessions | 13:40 |
| zyga | (20 minutes left) | 13:40 |
| smb | zyga, might be... not sure there. If submitting the report directly is too problematic, try the --save and then I think apport-cli to upload the saved file | 13:40 |
| zyga | smb: I suspended ubuntu-bug | 13:40 |
| zyga | smb: then did ps aux | 13:40 |
| zyga | and that hanged? | 13:40 |
| zyga | I keep getting kernel backtraces everywhere | 13:40 |
| smb | certainly not a very good state | 13:41 |
| smb | what kind of hw is that? | 13:41 |
| smb | (just wondering since it looks somewhat related to uefi changes) | 13:42 |
| zyga | smb: core i7 (latest one, I guess that's ivy bridge) | 13:43 |
| zyga | smb: broadcom wireless crap (wl), atheros ethernet (alx) | 13:43 |
| zyga | smb: the build is from lenovo, similar to ideapad but more 'value' market | 13:44 |
| smb | zyga, not any samsung by chance... well iirc some people had fun with lenovo too | 13:44 |
| smb | ok | 13:44 |
| zyga | hehe, no :) | 13:44 |
| smb | cking, do you remember... I thought someone had efi pain with some x something... | 13:45 |
| zyga | (it's running efi + signed kernel) | 13:45 |
| zyga | ubuntu-bug keeps printing dots | 13:45 |
| cking | smb, I'm trying to recall, but I can't think of it at the mo | 13:46 |
| zyga | I can suspend that and poke around in /sys/ if you want | 13:46 |
| smb | well if its done in a seperate thread it can do that for a while... | 13:46 |
| smb | zyga, Right now I could not say what to look for. | 13:48 |
| zyga | ok | 13:48 |
| zyga | I'll let it finish | 13:48 |
| zyga | and get ready for the first session | 13:48 |
| smb | afaik none of the team was having similar issues... except ... cking I think your sdp completely imploded for other reasons | 13:49 |
| cking | smb, yep, it lost it's mind and disabled auto CSM for some reason | 13:49 |
| smb | zyga, as said I would not be sure whether printing the dots is done while waiting for a background process. If those are seperate thread and the other one hangs, there could be a lot of dots,,, | 13:50 |
| cking | is that a bug in ubuntu-bug that needs reporting against ubuntu-bug? | 13:50 |
| smb | cking, I'd rather not... the world may recurse for eternity | 13:51 |
| cking | -ETOOMANYLEVELSOFINDIRECTION | 13:51 |
| diwic | -ETOOMANYWORDSMAKESITHARDTOREAD | 13:53 |
| diwic | although CamelCase doesn't look unix enough | 13:53 |
| zyga | heh | 13:53 |
| zyga | yeah | 13:54 |
| zyga | I think it's dead jim | 13:54 |
| === kentb-out is now known as kentb | ||
| brendand | bjf, is the proposed kernel cadence going to be discussed in the rolling release session coming up? | 15:53 |
| bjf | brendand, which cadence are you referring to? the sru cadence (not changing) or the daily, rolling cadence? | 15:54 |
| brendand | bjf - well, maybe i should ask this in the session, but e.g. will raring be included in the -proposed cadence after it's released? | 15:56 |
| geofft | Moving here from the room channel: would a "return true" autopkgtest in OpenAFS be reasonable, just to check compilability? | 16:42 |
| geofft | Will it get run against the PPA, and is there a way to sign up for notifications of test failures? | 16:42 |
| bjf | geofft, i think you are asking how to get a test integrated into the testing for the OpenAFS package. I think you'd want to discuss that with the maintainer. | 16:46 |
| geofft | I think my question is more "how does that test run against the PPA kernel before it gets pushed to production" | 16:53 |
| geofft | (I'm talking with the folks who did the most recent OpenAFS SRU) | 16:54 |
| apw | geofft, i don't think we know how the autopackage tests integrate well enough to answer that. pitti likely would knowb | 17:31 |
| * rtg_ -> early lunch | 17:46 | |
| apw | geofft, i also query your 'compilability' is the only thing we care about, if you don't care if it works why install it at all | 17:51 |
| geofft | apw: What I mean is that in the last like 5-6 years I've been using OpenAFS, I've never seen it build and not work right | 17:53 |
| geofft | apw: but it seems like half of all new kernel updates make it not build | 17:54 |
| apw | geofft, indeed, but the logical thing is to be aware of when it changes and to test it at those times | 17:54 |
| geofft | apw: OpenAFS itself doesn't change. It's the lack of stable kernel API that breaks it | 17:55 |
| geofft | (It's GPL-incompatible free software, the situation sucks all around) | 17:55 |
| apw | geofft, right the kernle doesn't offer one of those, never has | 17:55 |
| geofft | yeah | 17:55 |
| geofft | apw: I'm not asking for the kernel to start offering one | 17:55 |
| geofft | apw: I'm just saying, based on experience, new kernel minor versions have a good chance of breaking it in a way that it just won't compile | 17:55 |
| geofft | and approximately no chance of breaking it in a way that it compiles but doesn't run. | 17:55 |
| geofft | apw: I'm happy to write a more serious test that loads the module in a VM, but I don't think it'd be worth the overhead -- it wouldn't find anything | 17:56 |
| apw | geofft, if you had one of those you could run it against the kernels automatically as they appear in the PPA | 17:57 |
| apw | and be apprised if there were issues | 17:58 |
| geofft | sure, I can happily set up a local VM or something to do this. | 17:58 |
| geofft | I guess I'm just wondering if there's a way to do this on Ubuntu-run infrastructure, instead of a desktop in my living room | 17:59 |
| geofft | or adding more load to my organization's buildserver, or whatnot | 18:00 |
| geofft | it seems like the right place to do this test is with autopkgtest infrastructure, since it exists. | 18:00 |
| geofft | so the question is where to hook in infrastructure so we can say "hey hold up, we need another ./configure check in OpenAFS to handle this kernel API change" before you guys push a new kernel to rolling | 18:01 |
| apw | geofft, well if it was approved to hold the kernle for that that the britney runs would nominally hold it in -proposed | 18:27 |
| apw | i am unsure that britney yet holds for autotest failures, but that is the plan | 18:27 |
| apw | geofft, though if someone was activly maintaining openafs against the unstable kernel PPA we should never hit this issue | 18:27 |
| apw | geofft, as although it seems good to add lots of infrastructe for these things, simply being informed there are new kernels and testing with them in advance is probabally a lot less work, especially as you already indicated it will fail half the time | 18:28 |
| apw | as the time we want to find out this is going to fail is not when we shove a kernel into -proposed then be slaves to when someone fixes openafs, we want to know it is going to fail during the early -rcs and have it fixed by the itme we shove it in -proposed | 18:29 |
| geofft | apw: Yeah, testing against earlier RCs is the right answer, and much of the time upstream is on the ball about adapting to the API change in master | 18:37 |
| geofft | Most of the time of that, upstream remembers to backport those to stable; most of the time of _that_, the stable fix goes into Debian | 18:38 |
| geofft | But occasionally things fall through the cracks. | 18:38 |
| apw | geofft, our current minimal process is to announce kernels on kernel-team@ and to tell specific individuals with key requirements, currently the binary video drivers and the server folk who have a few | 18:38 |
| apw | geofft, with any new kerenl being in a test PPA it is trivial to make your own PPA for testing which depnds on our kernel PPA leading you to be testing against the said kernel | 18:39 |
| geofft | sure | 18:39 |
| apw | geofft, though you need a VM or similar to install the kernel for dkms packages annoyingly | 18:39 |
| geofft | there is packaging for building a module-assistant kernel, so maybe that can be abused to do a PPA test compile. | 18:40 |
| apw | something which did that on a regular (weekly perhaps) and reported back would be pretty easy to put together i recon | 18:40 |
| geofft | Can I set up a PPA that will automatically rebuild when the kernel PPA gets changed? | 18:40 |
| apw | geofft, for dkms that doesn't help cause building the package does not trigger dkms to run | 18:41 |
| apw | acdtually you just want a machine which has the kernle ppa attached and then just updates regularly | 18:41 |
| apw | if the update fails that is likely cause of openafs failing to build | 18:41 |
| geofft | yeah... is that what other people who care about DKMS do? I guess that's fine. | 18:41 |
| apw | i am unsure if they do it automatically, but that is the process in large part | 18:42 |
| smaresca | in the linux-image-3.2.0-* debs from http://ddebs.ubuntu.com, I've noticed that 'struct slab' seems to be missing from debug type data | 18:55 |
| smaresca | I was under the impression that even SLUB uses slab structs, so I was really confused that this was the case | 18:56 |
| smaresca | is that an expected omission? | 18:56 |
| * ppisati -> real life | 20:06 | |
| * rtg_ -> EOD | 20:26 | |
| === henrix is now known as henrix_ | ||
| apw | smaresca, it is not clear that it does use it | 20:48 |
| smaresca | apw, i agree..I've been trying to find some sort of confirmation one way or the other | 20:59 |
| apw | check include/linux/mm_types.h | 21:00 |
| apw | there is shows the slub info overlaying the slab_page pointer, the slab * type pointer | 21:00 |
| apw | you don't use both at once | 21:00 |
| smaresca | apw, so even though a lot of SLUB code references slabs, it's more a question of overlapping terminology, and i've gotten myself confused unnecessarily? | 21:08 |
| apw | smaresca, right they are 'slabs' in the sense they are typed memory pools | 21:08 |
| apw | smaresca, they are not slabs as in controlled by struct slab. they do i believe have a slab_info associated with them | 21:09 |
| smaresca | apw, thanks for clearing that up for me | 21:18 |
| BarkingFish | Hello guys :) I know it's a pain, but I don't suppose any of you would happen to have the main files for kernel 3.8.0-2-generic floating around at all, please? I've been given source to compile it myself, but my system doesn't seem to like that - next option is to search for someone with the headers, image-extra, and the image & -generic files please :) | 22:38 |
| BarkingFish | sorry for disappearing, had a system restart to put through | 23:11 |
| Sarvatt | BarkingFish: on https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux you can click view full publishing history up top, scroll down to the version you want https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/raring/+source/linux/3.8.0-2.6 then click on the architecture under Builds to get the debs | 23:22 |
| Sarvatt | the main headers package (not generic) is built on i386 for everything though so will need to get it from there if you're on amd64 | 23:24 |
| === kentb is now known as kentb-out | ||
| === kamalmostafa is now known as kamal | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!