[01:01] <Moc> Who should I talk to regarding a packaging script error with Nvidia driver forcing a lot of user to use a old driver (340) rather than a newer one like 390 ?
[08:46] <roaksoax>  /win 14
[11:47] <federico3> hi
[13:19] <tdaitx> @cjwatson I'm taking a look at doing an xenial+bionic sru for LP: #1667512, but I'm curious on why doing a "filesystem" sync was preferred compared to a "file" sync (ie. "sync -f <initrd.img>" instead of "sync <initrd.img>")
[13:19] <tdaitx> the particular patch you proposed is at https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/initramfs-tools/merge_requests/6/diffs
[13:19] <udevbot_> Error: "cjwatson" is not a valid command.
[13:20] <tdaitx> cjwatson: ^
[13:35] <cjwatson> tdaitx: I think I simply didn't realise that the file mode existed - the man page doesn't make it clear
[13:36] <cjwatson> tdaitx: That said, the fsync mode is tricky - you have to fsync the containing directory as well
[13:36] <cjwatson> tdaitx: So I think syncfs is harder to get wrong
[14:03] <tdaitx> cjwatson: hmm, you mean "sync the containing directory"  because it is a new file, right? in that case, yes, syncfs is better
[14:04] <cjwatson> indeed
[14:04] <cjwatson> don't want to end up with the dirent still pointing to the previous iteration of the same initramfs or something
[14:06] <tdaitx> indeed, fsync for new files is filesystem dependent
[17:21] <bneff> Having a weird issue where after using the keyboard audio controls, chrome does not process any mouse clicks.  Any pointers?