| === FJKong_afk is now known as FJKong | ||
| === gerald is now known as Guest66810 | ||
| === ara is now known as Guest14068 | ||
| === ayan is now known as Guest80066 | ||
| === ayan_ is now known as ayan | ||
| apw | LocutusOfBorg1, hiya, i see the new 5.0 virtual box doesn't yet have 4.2 support, is that coming soon or should i patch ubuntu up for it | 10:23 |
|---|---|---|
| apw | LocutusOfBorg1, i have a patch here i am using for the kernel import which fixes the symlink api in it, if thats of use | 10:24 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | hi apw answering there | 10:28 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | sorry for the late answer | 10:28 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | you can mail at locutusofborg@d.o | 10:28 |
| apw | (heh no late answer) | 10:28 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | s/d/debian | 10:29 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | s/o/org | 10:29 |
| apw | LocutusOfBorg1, will do indeed | 10:29 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | but wait please | 10:29 |
| * apw waits | 10:29 | |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | I'm opening an RC right now on Debian | 10:29 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | I wont virtualbox kicked out of Debian and Ubuntu | 10:29 |
| apw | oh ... why? | 10:29 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | I'll link it there ;) | 10:35 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | as soon as I finish the mail | 10:35 |
| apw | :) | 10:35 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | bug sent | 10:47 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | let BTS do the job and I'll post the link | 10:47 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | anyway, which files are changed? | 10:47 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | because as usual upstream should have already patched the sources | 10:48 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | and I usually update virtualbox with the latest release after the freeze, to be syncd with the kernel | 10:48 |
| apw | LocutusOfBorg1, vbox/vboxsf/lnkops.c they ahve changed the follow_link()/put_link() api, rather radically | 10:50 |
| apw | though the fixes are not big if that makes sense | 10:50 |
| apw | that is what i am using against what is in the 5.0.0 package for the kernel modules we have sucked in http://paste.ubuntu.com/11992242/ | 10:51 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | https://github.com/mdaniel/virtualbox-org-svn-vbox-trunk/commit/78627d149e35f21b689dec7977c9d6c386ad71e6 | 10:53 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | apw, ^^^ ? | 10:53 |
| apw | LocutusOfBorg1, yep that looks to be equivalent indeed, and better | 10:54 |
| apw | LocutusOfBorg1, so this is about opaque oracle, sigh | 10:57 |
| === henrix_ is now known as henrix | ||
| LocutusOfBorg1 | bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=794466 | 11:50 |
| LocutusOfBorg1 | apw, ^^^ yes (sorry I was lunching) | 11:50 |
| apw | heh np | 11:59 |
| === psivaa is now known as psivaa-lunch | ||
| === psivaa-lunch is now known as psivaa | ||
| apw | tseliot, guess what ... dkms packages for 4.2 are all unhappy (again) | 15:52 |
| tseliot | apw: yay for breaking the API. What kernel version are you using? | 15:53 |
| apw | 4.2-rc4 i think, though we have an upload about to land | 15:54 |
| tseliot | also why does dkms report building for both amd64 and x86_64 in the same chroot??? | 15:54 |
| tseliot | dkms status | 15:54 |
| tseliot | fglrx-core, 15.200.1, 4.1.0-3-generic, amd64: installed | 15:54 |
| tseliot | fglrx-core, 15.200.1, 4.1.0-3-generic, x86_64: installed | 15:54 |
| apw | gurgle :) | 15:55 |
| tseliot | oh, and BTW, I won't be able to fix nvidia for Linux 4.2, as kernel devs keep making functions GPL only... | 15:55 |
| apw | tseliot, fun | 15:56 |
| tseliot | oh, you have no idea ;) | 15:56 |
| apw | they need to start loadin the binary driver itself as a firmware blob | 15:56 |
| apw | then their driver can be GPL | 15:56 |
| tseliot | yes, that's probably the only way to do it, other than open sourcing everything (in our dreams) | 15:58 |
| apw | my very wet dreams | 15:59 |
| tseliot | hehe | 16:03 |
| apw | the _GPL is an utter farce whoever added that deserves a beatng | 16:04 |
| tseliot | +1000 | 16:04 |
| apw | tseliot, actually it is not at all clear to me that they couldn't write a wrapper which was propriatry which literally only exported the binary interfaces in the binary blobs as wrap_name 1 for 1 | 16:05 |
| apw | and then the existing GPL bits be a second module which is self contained and therefore GPL | 16:06 |
| apw | which uses both sets ... which demonstrates how the _GPL is a farse | 16:06 |
| ohsix | intent isn't ambiguous | 16:07 |
| ohsix | someone could do that, but it would be an overt action for 'reasons' | 16:07 |
| apw | ohsix, the intent is that only GPL things can link to that interface | 16:08 |
| apw | the intent isn't to make ordinary users lives vile | 16:08 |
| tseliot | :) | 16:10 |
| apw | and if one could not allow GPL code to talk to proprietaory blobs, then we couldn't talk to the bios | 16:10 |
| apw | nor to disk drives with firmware, or nics or ... | 16:10 |
| ohsix | that's not even remotely the same, heh; the question is over whether something is a derived work or not and symbol licenses make it unambiguous in certain places | 16:11 |
| ohsix | if there was an eula or literally anything that said you couldn't talk to the firmware on something then you'd be bound by that too | 16:11 |
| apw | ohsix, except that i am not sure you'd find that the licence exactly says any of the things either of us think is does, because lawyers | 16:12 |
| apw | none of the clarity we think is there, really is | 16:12 |
| ohsix | the question is of whether it is a derived work | 16:13 |
| ohsix | and the hazard with figuring that out in court | 16:13 |
| apw | indeed, and i'd contend "we don't know" is the only correct answer | 16:13 |
| ohsix | that's pretty clear | 16:13 |
| ohsix | you do know if the developer knows it is a significant feature of linux and states the symbol is gpl | 16:13 |
| apw | ohsix, i'd also contend that the intent of the writer of the _GPL in the main is to punish the _vendor_ | 16:13 |
| apw | ohsix, but in the main they are punishing the end user | 16:13 |
| apw | but then i have a modicom of pragmatism for a geek | 16:14 |
| ohsix | if the vendor cared about the user so much they wouldn't feel threatened by such a silly scheme ;] | 16:14 |
| apw | i make not comment on how stupid vendors can be | 16:14 |
| apw | i claim that the effort upstream only hurts users | 16:15 |
| ohsix | the derived work thing regarding the gpl is pretty well understood, what it means for the kernel is not | 16:15 |
| apw | as here, we likley won't have binary drivers fo nvidia going forward, and that makes users lives hard | 16:15 |
| ohsix | companies may end up creating derived works when they use the thing and at least the right parties will know it is happening | 16:16 |
| apw | i contend that we won't know any more than we do now, as they can cheat, and cheat in hidden code and you can't tell | 16:17 |
| apw | which is what makes it a farse | 16:17 |
| ohsix | drivers from staging taint the kernel for other reasons | 16:17 |
| apw | this isn | 16:17 |
| apw | isn't about taint, this is about not being able to do things | 16:17 |
| ohsix | you can tell, though; and if it comes down to it you can demonstrate intent to work around things | 16:17 |
| ohsix | it is about disclosure | 16:17 |
| ohsix | with symbol license statements every party knows what is up with respect to that symbol | 16:18 |
| apw | it is a legally questionable farse imo, but then my opinion counts for almost nothing | 16:18 |
| apw | take for example the case where we have an EXPORT_SYMBOL for something | 16:18 |
| apw | and someone changes the implementation and adds a dependancy which is _GPL | 16:18 |
| apw | now you have made that interface break the inner one, and if you fix it you break | 16:19 |
| apw | people who had every right to think they could use it | 16:19 |
| apw | its just stupid | 16:19 |
| apw | as happened with locks recently, so nothing could use locks | 16:19 |
| apw | its just not sustainable | 16:19 |
| apw | IMO the point of GPL code is to let people do what they want with their computers without big companies getting rich off it | 16:20 |
| apw | and _this_ is not served at all by this mess | 16:20 |
| ohsix | people don't have a problem with published shims and a blob, or having any given user being the one to knowingly put them together | 16:20 |
| apw | a case where the implementation does _not_ meet the goal and all because of the wording of a licence | 16:20 |
| apw | ohsix, except you can't use an _GPL symbols in such a case because the rules are blakc and white | 16:21 |
| apw | this is the exact case that the nvidia shim plus clearly and demonstrably externally created blob faces | 16:21 |
| apw | this is not the intent (imo) of the gpl | 16:21 |
| apw | yes its what the words say, but it is not the intent | 16:22 |
| ohsix | the shim creates an environment that is stable for the code to run in, you essentially need it regardless of whether there's a blob somewhere | 16:22 |
| apw | indeed, but that it links to the blob makes it not GPL and by becoming not GPL it cannot use the kernel any more | 16:23 |
| apw | so that makes the whole thing pointless, even though you are doing waht is recommended as a solution | 16:23 |
| apw | this is why _GPL is a bad solution to any problem | 16:23 |
| ohsix | well there is an analogy to a very american thing, you can buy the lower receiver for an m16, that part 'is' the gun, but it is not a 'gun' until you put the other 95% on it, the barrel, trigger mechanism, butt stock | 16:25 |
| apw | all my non-lawyer personal opinion | 16:25 |
| ohsix | people can freely sell and buy the receiver, but at some point after that what is done with it can be highly illegal | 16:25 |
| apw | but the point here is if you buy all the bits of that you can put them together, and if you do you get a gun | 16:25 |
| apw | whereas i can't put the bits together | 16:26 |
| ohsix | you can't unknowingly put the bits together | 16:26 |
| apw | oh and actually putting them together isn't illegal in my case | 16:26 |
| apw | i just am not allowed to do it by the tooling | 16:26 |
| apw | even though what i want to do is allowed and i am permitted to do it by the licence | 16:27 |
| * apw gets grumpy | 16:27 | |
| ohsix | you're also allowed to remove the _GPL part from all those statements, as long as it is never distributed, because you can't give that right to anyone else | 16:27 |
| apw | tseliot, so to perperuate this farse, i would contend you could make the shim copy and and all source it needs out of the originals, with the _GPL attached, ship that, and in dkms sed -e 's/_GPL//g' and then compile the result, and be lega | 16:28 |
| apw | legal | 16:28 |
| ohsix | sure | 16:29 |
| ohsix | but you show intent, and if some legal question comes up over that later, you knowingly did it :] | 16:29 |
| apw | which i thing completly makes my point, the only person you are penalising is the end-user | 16:29 |
| apw | which is not the intent of the GPL or GPL code in general | 16:29 |
| ohsix | the end user has the right to do such a thing | 16:29 |
| apw | and you make his life a living hell to make a pont | 16:30 |
| apw | point, a point you should be making to someone else | 16:30 |
| ohsix | the end user isn't distributing the code, generally, most things are binding when the code is distributed | 16:30 |
| ohsix | distributing a binary is distributing the code, and i'm not a lawyer but i'm pretty sure that it's clear the binary counts as a derived work | 16:31 |
| ohsix | you can talk to the fsf and stuff, doesn't canonical have staff lawyers? :D | 16:31 |
| apw | i don't dispute that reading of the words, i mearly contend we punish the wrong person | 16:31 |
| apw | i don't need to talk to a lawyer to know my opinion on the situation | 16:32 |
| ohsix | i think your opinion may be different if you knew how important it is legally to remove ambiguity by just stating the license for a symbol vs. the alternative | 16:32 |
| ohsix | but fair enough | 16:32 |
| apw | no i don't see how _GPL does a thing, the kernel is licenced en-toto under the GPL | 16:33 |
| ohsix | there have been debates over whether using _GPL was even appropriate, and they favor not | 16:33 |
| apw | adding or removing _GPL does nothing to change that not adds anything to that story | 16:33 |
| ohsix | it is, but what is a 'derived work' | 16:33 |
| ohsix | that's the thing at question in any case dealing with this | 16:34 |
| apw | the licence does not add meaning to that wording therefore it being or not being in the code has no meaning | 16:34 |
| ohsix | _GPL is used where an author considers that anything that would touch that symbol is likely a derived work | 16:34 |
| apw | i would contend that i can do whatever the GPL says i can with either interchangably | 16:34 |
| apw | it is unlikely they are qualified to make that judgement any more than the lawyer who will | 16:35 |
| apw | under a strict legal reading | 16:35 |
| apw | as anyone who has spent time with a lawyer will tell you | 16:35 |
| apw | any more than _i_ am qualfied | 16:35 |
| ohsix | sure | 16:36 |
| apw | nor would i want to be of course | 16:36 |
| ohsix | but it shows intent | 16:36 |
| ohsix | i wiped out a line i decided not to say, but it was like, anything very generally for dealing with virtual memory pages wouldn't be _GPL, per-se; but a function that was basically considered internal to linux' specific vm might be | 16:37 |
| apw | i am not sure you can show intent of an action i perform | 16:37 |
| apw | anyhow, all academic in real terms | 16:38 |
| tseliot | the only intent I can see is that to make my life miserable as a maintainer when they change functions to GPL only :P | 16:39 |
| apw | and that is their intent i am sure :) | 16:39 |
| apw | if our source packages were co-installable you might just be able to use that as a base | 16:40 |
| apw | so you'd not need to include your source | 16:40 |
| ohsix | it's also not unlike highly visible and deliberately placed 'no tresspassing' signs | 16:41 |
| apw | placed on a public park entrance | 16:41 |
| tseliot | :D | 16:41 |
| ohsix | police won't have to speak to property owner to know that they intend to have anyone that doesn't belong there removed, but 'belong there' and everything can happen at a different time | 16:42 |
| apw | yes, except in this case end users are allowed to do whatever they like in the park | 16:42 |
| ohsix | provided they don't then have to share the park with someone else ;] | 16:42 |
| apw | yes, and the signs don't say "don't share the park" they say "don't enter the park" | 16:43 |
| apw | which is my entire point | 16:43 |
| ohsix | 'dont share the park' is implied by 'dont enter the park' | 16:43 |
| apw | i don't think you can really mean that | 16:43 |
| ohsix | you can't share a park you can't be in | 16:43 |
| ohsix | nor ice cream you don't have | 16:44 |
| apw | yes but i have the right to be in the park | 16:44 |
| apw | so telling me "don't enter the park" is just rude and obnoxious | 16:44 |
| apw | because you want the park for yourself, no ? | 16:44 |
| ohsix | the park was your thing, i was talking about where clear markers can be placed and be relevant | 16:44 |
| ohsix | you can't smoke in the park, how about that | 16:44 |
| apw | if you want me to not share the park licence it to me that way, oh thats exactly what you did | 16:44 |
| apw | on the GPL lets me do what i want to the park as long as i don't share it | 16:45 |
| apw | i can burn it to the ground, wahtever | 16:45 |
| apw | the GPL already tells me i cannot do these things, i _KNOW_ i can't do them | 16:45 |
| apw | and i don't do them, take DKMS as fine example | 16:45 |
| apw | that follows the rules, it is doing the right thing, and _GPL stops it doing something | 16:45 |
| apw | it is allowed to do | 16:45 |
| apw | it is the wrong tool for the job | 16:46 |
| apw | stop hitting the screw with a hammer i say | 16:46 |
| apw | anyhow, this is not going to solve my problem, doing something utterly stupid is going to do that | 16:47 |
| ohsix | 'the gpl' also stops it from doing a lot of things, and the user too | 16:47 |
| apw | yes, it does, but not this thing | 16:47 |
| ohsix | it existing at all is a sign of that, you can't then go on and say that _GPL is the problem | 16:48 |
| apw | well as an end user i actually can | 16:48 |
| ohsix | if not for 'the gpl', dkms wouldn't have a 'the _GPL' problem | 16:48 |
| apw | dkms doesn't have a GPL problem it has only an _GPL prolem | 16:48 |
| apw | problem | 16:48 |
| tseliot | BTW, the function that breaks nvidia is flush_workqueue(). Why wasn't it originally _GPL ? And why is it now? | 16:48 |
| apw | according to lawyers anyhow | 16:49 |
| ohsix | dkms wouldn't exist if you could distribute the built modules | 16:49 |
| apw | right we're not talking about the fact dkms is required as part of the GPL | 16:49 |
| apw | we're talkin about the fact that even though it does something which is allowed, the tools prevent it | 16:49 |
| ohsix | the tools wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the license that it is bound to eventually by extra technical measures and point of fact problems | 16:50 |
| ohsix | it's just not a logical sequence of things that makes any sense | 16:50 |
| apw | i don't dispute they exist, i dispute they implement the intent of the limitations | 16:50 |
| apw | i don't have technological limitations preventing me speeding in my car, its still illegal | 16:51 |
| apw | ths is like having a speed regulator at 55 becuase once in the past the speed limit was that | 16:51 |
| apw | ohsix, and in the nicest posible sense we are wasting each others time, we are not going to agree here :) | 16:53 |
| ohsix | we don't disagree | 16:54 |
| apw | not indeed does it matter what either of us believe as what is is and what lawyers think is what they think | 16:54 |
| ohsix | but i don't think the legal situation here is too fine a point to understand | 16:54 |
| ohsix | if the license were BSD this really really wouldn't be a problem, would it | 16:54 |
| ohsix | it's just matter of fact 'problems' that are implied with what the situation actually is | 16:55 |
| ohsix | tseliot: do you have some idea when it changed? (flush_workqueue) | 16:55 |
| ohsix | i'm git log'ing but this machine has slow disks and not much memory | 16:56 |
| apw | tseliot, yeah interestingly there is a commit back on schedule_work which reversed a GPLification of a symbol because it was previously something else | 16:57 |
| ohsix | it looks like it was before historical git epoch, not looking that up, huhuhu | 16:58 |
| ohsix | that stuff lives in kernel/ tho | 16:58 |
| apw | tseliot, so i don't think you calling that direct as it has always been _GPL i assume its now called from something else newly | 16:59 |
| tseliot | I really hope it has a non-GPL_ wrapper | 17:00 |
| ohsix | the discussion would really be moot and silly if it came down to a symbol that didn't even matter much | 17:01 |
| tseliot | it's already as silly as it gets. This is not the first time that happens. I've seen much worse | 17:03 |
| tseliot | the dma_buf code though was probably one of the best examples of how pointless GPL_ is | 17:04 |
| tseliot | with NVIDIA eventually adding non-GPL_ wrappers in the kernel and ending the argument | 17:05 |
| apw | tseliot, does this use its own workqueue or the system one ? | 17:05 |
| ohsix | again that's not really what the point is, nor is it 'the gpl' | 17:06 |
| apw | whats the flush_workqueue incantation if it has one | 17:06 |
| apw | ohsix, the GPL is fine and dandy and i support its intent intensly | 17:06 |
| ohsix | all the workqueue symbols are gpl and have been for like 10 years | 17:06 |
| tseliot | apw: I haven't really checked that, or maybe I have and I forgot about it. It's been a while. | 17:07 |
| apw | ohsix, well half of them are, "delayed" work isn't, most inconsistant | 17:08 |
| tseliot | there were non-GPL_ wrappers for the workqueue though... | 17:08 |
| tseliot | if I remember correctly | 17:08 |
| apw | tseliot, right, i am sure there were for some operations | 17:09 |
| * tseliot nods | 17:09 | |
| apw | tseliot, i can see why you go mad updating this thing ... uggg | 17:11 |
| tseliot | yes, at least we're going to get rid of fglrx, so it's going to be just nvidia (sooner or later) | 17:12 |
| apw | tseliot, does this really contain a shar file containing a binary installer, i am going to barf | 17:14 |
| tseliot | apw: fglrx does not (if you're referring to my tarballs), nvidia's certainly does | 17:16 |
| apw | tseliot, the latter indeed, uggg | 17:16 |
| tseliot | apw: yes, you might want to run $INSTALLER_NAME -x , then enter the kernel directory | 17:17 |
| tseliot | all right, time for me to go | 17:18 |
| * tseliot -> away | 17:18 | |
| unixabg | apw: Greetings, just checking on casper and overlayfs. | 17:41 |
| apw | unixabg, was there a bug number on that, so i can put it on my todo and make sure i get to it | 17:43 |
| bdmurray | apw: every iproute2 crash I can find uses the latest trusty kernel. | 17:45 |
| apw | bdmurray, hmmm interesting | 17:45 |
| apw | bdmurray, do we have any idea where/what it is exploding in | 17:45 |
| bdmurray | apw: that's with the release pocket version of iproute2 or the -updates version | 17:45 |
| apw | bdmurray, ok so definatly not the userspace tools i'd say then | 17:46 |
| bdmurray | apw: Oh, I didn't realize 3.13.0-59 was superceded. I haven't looked for the latest kernel yet. | 17:47 |
| unixabg | apw: no I had just tested and multiple overlayfs did not work on my test environment. I do not think it hard | 17:47 |
| unixabg | to reproduce and I am not sure if it is a casper thing or not. | 17:47 |
| bdmurray | apw: the vast majority of the crashs are when running /sbin/ip route fwiw | 17:48 |
| apw | unixabg, ack, thats fine, i suspect i know exactly whats up, and just need to keep a handle on it, i'll file something to remind me | 17:48 |
| apw | bdmurray, hmmm ... ok | 17:48 |
| apw | bdmurray, i think we need to file a bug against linux with all this info in | 17:48 |
| apw | bdmurray, as i don't think it can be userspace if -releaase and -update are fingered, and its all since that kernel went out | 17:49 |
| bdmurray | apw: Okay, I'll open a bug. | 17:49 |
| apw | bdmurray, thanks, let us know the number here and we'll get someone to look at what you have, include any links to traces you have | 17:50 |
| apw | bdmurray, or of ocurse add a task for the existing iproute2 bug for linux, and let us know the number | 17:56 |
| bdmurray | apw: bug 1481038 I'm still adding more details though | 18:09 |
| ubot5 | bug 1481038 in linux (Ubuntu) "iproute2 crashes being reported since kernel version 3.13-0-59-generic" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1481038 | 18:09 |
| unixabg | apw: humble appreciation and if you push something to test I shall do my best to test it. | 18:09 |
| apw | bjf, this looks like it might be a kernel issue in routing, though it causes userspace to explode i think | 18:10 |
| bjf | apw, are you going to work that bug or do you want jsalisbury to start bisecting it? | 18:12 |
| apw | bjf, i thnk i am not gonig to look at it today, i am slightly unsure if we cna reproduce it atm whihc would be necessary | 18:13 |
| apw | it might be worth seeing if jsalisbury can figure out a reproduce by for sure | 18:13 |
| bjf | jsalisbury, ^ is that ok with you? | 18:13 |
| jsalisbury | apw, bjf, ack, I'll take a look | 18:14 |
| bdmurray | I'm still running some database queries and let me know if I can help at all. | 18:15 |
| apw | bdmurray, anything you can tell us about what combos do and don't show this is good | 18:16 |
| jsalisbury | bdmurray, do you have the steps you used in comment #1 to reproduce the bug? | 18:16 |
| bdmurray | jsalisbury: I was just testing to make sure that apport generated good crashes by manually killing the "ip monitor" process. | 18:17 |
| jsalisbury | bdmurray, ahh, ok. I'll take a look at the oops once you attach them | 18:17 |
| apw | jsalisbury, this seems to be a userspace crash, but it is shown with old and new userpace, and only with the latest kernel | 18:17 |
| apw | so it might be a userpace bug being exposed by a kernle change or something | 18:18 |
| bdmurray | jsalisbury: unfortunately there is no stacktrace or coredump with these crashes. | 18:18 |
| jsalisbury | bdmurray, ok, I'll review whatever data we can get | 18:19 |
| bdmurray | I've added the oopses from 20150729 | 18:19 |
| bdmurray | oh, its all on amd64 too | 18:19 |
| jsalisbury | bdmurray, I'll spin up a VM with that kernel and play with iproute to see if I can reproduce the issue | 18:22 |
| bdmurray | jsalisbury: sounds good, I wonder if (because the crashes are incomplete) it might be happening during boot up or shutdown. | 18:23 |
| jsalisbury | bdmurray, ack, that should be easy to find out | 18:24 |
| apw | jsalisbury, do let me know how you get on | 18:24 |
| jsalisbury | apw, sure will | 18:24 |
| jsalisbury | bdmurray, apw, nice, I already have a physical machine running Trusty with the -58 kernel, so I'll just install that kernel and start testing | 18:26 |
| apw | jsalisbury, yeah you might want to put a few reboots in your world | 18:28 |
| jsalisbury | apw, I'll do that with just upgrading the kernel and try some other things out. Then apply the full updates and try again. | 18:29 |
| jsalisbury | bdmurray, what's the best way to confirm if this bug is reproduced? Will an oops be written to syslog or anything else in another log file? | 18:43 |
| jsalisbury | bdmurray, I guess I can look for whoopsie messages in syslog and that dialog box will pop up | 18:54 |
| jsalisbury | bdmurray, apw, upgrading just the kernel brings me up to -61, so I'll roll back to -58 to try and reproduce just in case it might have been fixed | 18:58 |
| apw | jsalisbury, ack | 18:58 |
| bdmurray | jsalisbury: look for an iproute2 crash file in /var/crash/ | 19:20 |
| jsalisbury | bdmurray, thanks | 19:28 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!