[00:13] good night [00:15] apw: Going through the xenial history ended up being one of those bisects we hate: [00:15] linux-image-4.2.0-19-powerpc64-smp_4.2.0-19.23_powerpc.deb -- good [00:15] linux-image-4.3.0-0-powerpc64-smp_4.3.0-0.9_powerpc.deb -- bad [00:15] apw: So, yay, that's a huge chunk to drill through between them still. [00:16] man o man that is a lovely one [00:17] we likely have mailine builds in between but it will turn out to be -rc1 [00:20] Probably. [00:22] I still need to understand why that ISO didn't work. [00:22] Or maybe I don't need to, because it doesn't make sense. [00:35] apw: https://git.kernel.org/linus/f15838e9cac8f78f0cc506529bb9d3b9fa589c1f [00:37] apw: Please to cherrypick, thanks. [00:43] apw: Pretty please. [00:49] Based on the CC, I'd assume it'll come in via Greg's tree "sometime", but I'd rather that be now. :P === BenC_ is now known as BenC [05:04] lol i've not had a /. account in 15 years, but they found me for their we 've been bought ut email [05:10] but so i guess my thought wasn't to paper over bugs in the lxc monitor, but rather to make sure you can still list containers and figure out what's going on [05:13] all right lemme set up a clean system and see if the guy's recipe works for me. (thogh it seems unlikely) [05:24] guess i'll leave this running for a few hours. no hang so far. [05:34] hallyn: I think you meant for ^ to go to #lxc-dev :) [06:14] doh [06:14] my channels done moved [09:05] infinity, ack [09:07] b 7 [10:32] apw: from what I can gather, DASD kernel dump is not triggered automatically but requires operator intervention [10:51] caribou: ahh ok, such is life then [11:46] caribou: apw: https://github.com/qemu/s390-tools/blob/master/etc/sysconfig/dumpconf [11:46] caribou: apw: I don't know if we have this in our s390-tools/utils package yet [11:46] caribou: apw: but in genereal one can set dump-on-panic instead of operator intervention [12:01] cpaelzer, oh thats better indeed [12:02] apw: yeah, testers usually configure that as step #1 to capture anything that might happen [12:26] caribou, did you get access to that s390x instance yet ? if so would you be able to get me a dmesg off it (for an unrelated bug) [12:27] apw: I should still have access to xnox's instance, lemme check [12:30] apw: just emailed it to you [12:33] caribou, thanks [13:43] When will linux-hwe-{generic,virtual}-trusty stop pointing at linux-image-{generic,virtual}-lts-utopic? [13:47] Odd_Bloke, weeeeel it should alread point to -lts-vivid, but perhaps that ship has sailed [13:48] bjf, ^ we should prolly make a plan on how that changes, what the criteria is [14:32] xnox, as this could be host tools fooking up the key or the kernel fooking up the key, i have built a cross compiled kernel which would therefore have used the x86 userspace to build the key... would you be able to boot the s390x kernel here sometime: http://people.canonical.com/~apw/master-next-xenial/ [14:49] apw: It should probably change at the same time as point releases go out (since that's when we officially recommend people use the newer HWE stack), but clearly that's not been happening. :P [14:50] infinity, right i think the same official position, which did not occur for -v [14:58] apw: Nor -w. [15:00] oh yeah, whoops === caribou_ is now known as caribou [17:21] apw, BAD [17:21] [ 0.687893] Problem loading in-kernel X.509 certificate (-74) [17:21] Linux DEVAC02 4.4.0-14-generic #30~masternext201603151358 SMP Tue Mar 15 13:59:23 UTC 2016 s390x s390x s390x GNU/Linux [17:21] ok so not likely to be userspace tools breaking it as those were HOST compiled in that build [17:22] apw, i have rhel system that loads the keys fine... [17:23] apw, here is the config from it http://paste.ubuntu.com/15393512/ if that at all relevant. [17:25] i don't see anything.... [17:26] xnox, no indeed, i'll start adding debug, i can see nothing obvious [17:27] apw, anyway i can make things faster for you? would you want an ubuntu libvirt-qemu VM or some such? [17:27] xnox, if you are happy to test kernels that works for me [17:27] apw, ok =) [17:29] apw, any point in me fetching and trying an older kernel (e.g. 4.3) to check if things used to work back then? [17:31] xnox, yep, thats is a good idea, find me a first broke if you can [17:31] and i'll add some printks [17:42] xnox, ok first debug: http://people.canonical.com/~apw/lp1557250-xenial/ [18:10] apw, call trace at http://paste.ubuntu.com/15393871/ [18:10] load_system_certificate_list [18:10] or do you want more things from console too? [18:11] [ 0.678674] preparse -> ret=-74 [18:11] that is the info i wanted, the call trace it the new bits tim added, so we find out this is happening in the wild if it comes back [18:11] rtg, your warn_on_once is working [18:13] apw, getting some stack traces ? [18:14] rtg, yep, on s390x where we know it is broke [18:14] apw, did you find any encryption configs that need enabling ? [18:15] rtg, nope, still debugging it with xnox [18:16] rtg, yeah no configs diff that we can spot (i compared with e.g. rhel config where certs are loaded) [18:17] apw, is there any vanilla kernel i can try, to see if things are dire upstream? (but i guess we kind of know that now...) [18:18] xnox, for s390x ? no [18:24] ok, i got to go =( [18:24] apw, talk to you later. [18:25] xnox, no worries, i'll shove you a new debug kernel and you can get to it when you do [18:25] is there any plan to include trim/discard support in the zfs driver? [18:35] TJ-, is there a bug associated with that ? [18:35] so i can check [18:35] on Launchpad, or on the ZFSonLinux project? [18:36] I've been following the upstream work and the merge proposal *finally* looks to be ready: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/pull/3656 [18:37] xnox, there is a new debug kernel in the same place ... have fun [18:37] TJ-, if its not a standard feature i am not expecting it to be something on our radar at this time, this being the first lts with this in, its not clearly its a good plan to have anything experimental in there [18:38] apw: right; it might be worth flagging up in prominent docs about lack of discard/trim support for those that are intending deploying it to SSD systems [18:39] especially as a major use-case appears to be for supporting containers etc. [18:39] TJ-, i am sure anyone buying into zfs would know, but possible i guess [19:18] jsalisbury: fyi, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1547619/comments/28 [19:18] Launchpad bug 1547619 in linux (Ubuntu Xenial) "Intermittent screen blinking with 4k external mini display port with 4.4 kernels" [Medium,In progress] [19:19] jsalisbury: that is *not* the one you mentioned in #27, but rather the one from #24 [19:32] jdstrand, thanks for the update. I'll build the next test kernel [19:36] thanks! [20:38] hey [20:38] how much do we care ? [20:39] 4 [20:39] out of 9 ohsix [20:39] http://paste.ubuntu.com/15395889/ [20:40] how much do we care about the stacktrace above ^ [20:40] coupled with host kernel dmesg http://paste.ubuntu.com/15395901/ [20:40] that is trusty on xenial through vagrant. [20:41] in the guest this would cauase a hang: cat /proc/8248/cmdline [20:43] rtg, ^ ? i suspect its "not much". [20:46] smoser, is taht really on 3.13.0-32 ? thats like 50 releases behind [20:46] smoser, it is hard for us to do much with vbox [20:47] and we had known issues with vbox back in the old days [20:47] smoser, why is it booting such an old kernel anyhow ? [20:47] apw, that is a good point. [20:47] the user was booting that old kernel because they did an iso instll (through a tool called packer) [20:48] and the only isos that install a 3.13 get you that level [20:48] hrm, so they may have a bit of a chicken/egg issue [20:50] yeah, could be. but in this case it wasnt the intsaller trying to install a newer kernel. the vagrant box that was published had the very old kernel there. [21:49] and this is why the pre-canned binary form for things is not a good idea [23:08] tjaalton, isnt broadwell supposed to used thei915 you added ?? [23:08] tjaalton, does not on my lappy [23:09] Is it? I thought the i915 backport was for skylake. [23:13] i think i saw tjaalton say it was for more than skylake