[07:34] <apw> snadge, file the bug against the linux-image-NNN which is the broken one
[07:34] <apw> and say which you are running in the commentary
[08:07]  * apw yawns
[08:07] <apw> morning ...
[09:23]  * smb goes to get more tea
[11:00] <tjaalton> apw: so, should I create a 'update i915_hsw to current 3.8.13.x' pull request first, and then the two new commits on top of that? 
[11:00] <tjaalton> it's just a bit of manual work
[11:04] <apw> tjaalton, that going to be like commits
[11:04] <tjaalton> yeah
[11:04] <apw> 57 commits
[11:04] <apw> ?
[11:04] <tjaalton> right
[11:04] <apw> hmmm ... for SRU
[11:05] <tjaalton> they just keep piling up :)
[11:05] <tjaalton> bad kamal :)
[11:05] <apw> i guess if we have applied them 
[11:05] <apw> already for 'master' then they should be on hte ubuntu version
[11:06] <tjaalton> yup
[11:06] <tjaalton> I'll try with a few to see how awkward it is..
[11:07] <apw> tjaalton, ok thanks ... i guess
[11:20] <tjaalton> hmm, yesterday I got 57 commits as the diff, but only 37 now
[11:33] <tjaalton> ah, that's the pure stable tree diff.. raring has more
[15:24] <kamal> tjaalton, what'd I do?
[15:24] <kamal> tjaalton, apw ... should I be terrified about whatever it is that you're talking about here ...  because I am!
[15:25] <apw> yes, you should indeed, you are getting the blame at least
[15:26] <kamal> apw, while I'm sure the blame is rightly directed . . .  what exactly am I getting the blame for?  :-)
[15:26] <apw> needing 37 patches for i915 in quantal
[15:26]  * kamal looks sideways at apw
[15:27] <kamal> next you'll point out that we need 137 patches for i915 in precise!
[15:33] <apw> yeah the 37 in q is to avoid that in p i think
[15:34] <kamal> apw, are we really talking about quantal here?   tjaalton mentioned raring above (and I maintain 3.8, not 3.5, anyway) . . .  anyway...
[15:35] <tjaalton> kamal: no worries, just kiddin ;)
[15:35] <tjaalton> +g
[15:35] <kamal> I am of course open to suggestions, but it seems implausible that we could call any 37-patch set reasonable for application to "stable"
[15:36] <tjaalton> kamal: it's from your stable tree :)
[15:36] <kamal> oh oh, do I have this all backwards?
[15:36] <tjaalton> the diff .13..13.11
[15:36] <kamal> oh.  in that case . . .
[15:36] <kamal> I'm sure those patches are freaking awesome! . . .  perfect code, fully worthy of stable!  ;-) ;-) ;-)
[15:37] <apw> i think he was saying the quantal needs a bunch of fixes already applied in stable for raring, but on quantal, or something
[15:37] <apw> i am hoping some day he will send us a pull so we cna review
[15:37]  * kamal goes back to hiding under a rock then :-)
[15:38] <tjaalton> so I went through the 57 commits that git claimed that is the diff between .13 and raring, but in fact a bunch of those were already in .13, so the diff between quantal i915_hsw and raring is around 36 commits
[15:38] <tjaalton> three only in raring, and one of those valid for haswell
[15:39] <kamal> tjaalton, I'm curious about the three only in raring (you mean they're in raring, but not in 3.8.13.11, right?) ... send me that list?
[15:39] <tjaalton> kamal: yeah I bet they are awesome, that's why I think it makes sense to merge to ubuntu/i915 in quantal :)
[15:40] <kamal> (not that that relates to your quantal project)
[15:40] <tjaalton> kamal: 0d0ecad2c0dd07e, e8c14411e539718, 0009bd009e9ec8b
[15:40] <kamal> tjaalton, thanks
[15:44] <tjaalton> the first one didn't make it upstream, actually
[15:46] <rtg> jjohansen, when Linus merges 'Apparmor bugfixes for 3.12' you should propose both patches for stable
[15:56] <jjohansen> rtg: ack, I will check if there is anything for stable. However I think all the bug fixes sent up lately have only been against the 3.12 pull request
[15:57] <rtg> jjohansen, oh, right. 13.10 is carrying the AA development branch.
[15:58] <jjohansen> yep
[18:14] <smoser> hey
[18:14] <smoser> stupid question
[18:14] <smoser> (familiar pattern when smoser speaks)
[18:14] <smoser> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/149319334/overlayfs_inotify.patch
[18:14] <smoser> on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/882147
[18:14] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 882147 in coreutils (Ubuntu) "overlayfs does not implement inotify interfaces correctly" [Undecided,In progress]
[18:15] <smoser> could we have that ? if its functional? or help push it upstream ? 
[18:15] <smoser> googling for CONFIG_INOTIFY_STACKFS doesn't really show anything
[18:19] <bjf> smoser, that's not implemented upstream, downstream or any of the tributaries
[18:19] <smoser> the patch is not.
[18:19] <smoser> overlayfs is upstream, right?
[18:19] <bjf> smoser, you are asking about inotify interfaces, right?
[18:20] <bjf> smoser, in overlayfs
[18:20] <smoser> overlayfs is upstream. right?
[18:20] <smoser> i'd like to have inotify support in overlayfs, because lots of stuff sucks without it.
[18:20] <smoser> i see that patch which seems to report that it is adding inotify to overlayfs
[18:21] <xnox> apw: ^
[18:21] <xnox> smoser: no, it doesn't not work and has performance penalty.
[18:22] <smoser> doesnt work woudl be enough reason to not have it 
[18:22] <smoser> :)
[18:22] <smoser> xnox, you've tried it thoug?
[18:22] <rtg-afk> smoser, overlayfs is not yet upstream
[18:23] <smoser> ah. ok. i had thought it got accepted.
[18:23] <rtg-afk> smoser, multiple attempts,. but no joy yet
[18:24] <smoser> right. ok. well, move along then, nothing to see here.
[18:24] <smoser> i saw that patch and hoped magic inotify support materialized from the ether
[18:25] <smoser> xnox, you've tried it?
[21:27]  * rtg -> EOD