[01:51] <sam_yan> Is there some project or work to tuning the multi-core?
[07:42] <apw> santoshmahto, 
[07:42] <apw> bah sorry tab fail
[09:05] <sam_yan> ?
[09:25] <apw> sam_yan, there is cirtianly wrk going on upstream on numa and multi-core and the relationship between
[16:28] <apw> which trusty kernel, GA or one of the HWE kernels ?
[16:28] <fish_> the trusty-updates installer kernel is 3.13.0-85-generic
[16:28] <apw> ok so the GA kernel
[16:28] <fish_> so that's what I would need the module for but I'm also fine with using another kernel which has this module available.
[16:29]  * apw looks
[16:29] <fish_> http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?searchon=contents&keywords=pm80xx.ko&mode=exactfilename&suite=trusty-updates&arch=any
[16:29] <fish_> the only 3.13.0-85 is /lib/modules/3.13.0-85-powerpc-e500/kernel/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm80xx.ko
[16:29] <fish_> but maybe the kernel module is called diffrently now
[16:29] <apw> well its unlikely to be a differnt name in the two architectures
[16:29] <fish_> it's unlikely that a raid controller driver is available for ppc but not amd64 I'd say ;)
[16:29] <fish_> so.. who knows
[16:29] <apw> indeed
[16:30] <apw> that driver looks to be enabled for all architectures
[16:30] <apw> that have pci and scsi
[16:30] <apw> debian.master/abi/3.13.0-87.133/amd64/generic.modules:pm80xx
[16:30] <apw> and the module is a module for amd64
[16:31] <apw> crap launchpad is in a heap
[16:31] <apw> so i can't get the packages to confirm
[16:33] <fish_> it's possible that the module was introduced around that time. I'm pretty sure we had to use a external/dkms kernel modul in the past
[16:35] <apw> dunno but it looks to be in the version you are asking about
[16:35] <apw> but i cannotdownload actual binaries right now to confirm
[16:35] <apw> (this is from the info in the source tree)
[17:00] <fish_> apw: hrm.. let see, maybe packages.ubuntu.com is just wrong
[17:01] <fish_> apw: nope: dpkg -L linux-image-3.13.0-85-generic|grep pm80xx
[17:01] <apw> have you looked in linux-image-extra-...
[17:01] <fish_> ah right, let me check
[17:03] <fish_> apw: oh! yes, it's there.. 
[17:04] <fish_> apw: but why is it missing from packages.ubuntu.com?
[17:06] <fish_> apw: okay now maybe there is also a better way to include that in the installer than me extracting the initrd manually and adding the module..?
[17:06] <apw> fish_, you are looking at linux-image on p.u.c perhaps
[17:07] <fish_> apw: no, I searched for all packages including pm80xx.ko
[17:07] <apw> fish_, sounds like that should be in the disk udeb, and to fix that weneed a bug
[17:07] <apw> file a bug against the kernel "ubuntu-bug linux" and put that detail in there
[17:07] <fish_> okay, then I'll fill a bug
[17:07] <apw> when you have a bug, let me know the number here
[17:07] <fish_> kk
[17:07] <apw> but ... that won't fix existing installer images
[17:08] <apw> so if we fix it "now" we should be able to fix it in the next point release though
[17:08] <fish_> apw: are there something like nightlies for the installer?
[17:08] <apw> there will be soon if not, as we are coming up to a a release
[17:10] <fish_> launchpad has still issues though
[17:11] <apw> yep a lot of infrastucture is sick right now, many people are running about
[17:16] <fish_> apw: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1595628
[17:18] <apw> kamal, ^ that one we prolly want to ensure is fixed in trusty and xenial kernels this cycle
[17:18] <apw> (so you might want to poke me if you haven't had a patch for that before you close up the releases)
[17:21] <kamal> apw, last day for commits will be tomorrow, so . . .  poke!
[17:40] <fish_> apw: a minor note: the brad-figg bot says "please add a comment stating that fact and change the bug status to 'Confirmed'." where the status description of confirmed says "Verified by someone other than the reporter.
[17:40] <apw> fish_, yeah don't worry about that, just move it confirmed
[17:40] <fish_> I've set it to confirmed but this could confuse people and might (or might not) be trivial to fix :)
[17:42] <apw> fish_, the people who consume the bug states know that they are a little odd for kernel bugs
[17:43] <apw> fish_, we will not be confused by it being confirmed
[17:44] <fish_> apw: fine with me, but from a UI perspective you tell your users two things that are contradictory. I know that you added this bot and what it says weights more than the those labels, others might not. just a though :)
[17:45] <fish_> anyway, thanks a lot for your help :)
[17:45] <apw> fish_, meh very few people read anything even if it is flashing
[17:45] <fish_> fair enough :)
[17:45] <apw> fish_, confirmed is mean to mean this is affecting more than one user, but we cheat a little
[17:45] <apw> else we keep spamming you for logs :)
[17:46] <apw> there you go i have moved it to triaged, as it has everything we need to fix it
[17:46] <apw> now it is in a state which matches the meaning
[17:46] <fish_> yay :)
[19:34] <apw> stgraber, hey ... when are we going to get the lxc tests fixed in yakkety ... i am concerned about the level of change we are about to dump in there when lxc is totally untested
[19:42] <stgraber> apw: uploading a new lxc which should skip the test on yakkety
[19:43] <stgraber> http://paste.ubuntu.com/17763572/
[19:46] <apw> stgraber, awsome thanks
[19:47] <stgraber> well, skipping the test isn't exactly awesome, but yeah, it's going to be less crappy for you
[19:47] <apw> stgraber, well if it doesn't work and always fails, that is worse than skipping
[19:48] <apw> stgraber, as we just assume the failure is that test and ignore the results, and who knows what else is actually broken
[19:48] <stgraber> yeah, I actually do read the adt test output usually to confirm it's just that test :)