=== tomreyn_ is now known as tomreyn [15:25] Hi everyone! I've got my Ubuntu Studio hat on, and I'm not happy that the lowlatency kernel is officially lagging behind the generic kernel in jammy. This is what I feared would happen as a result of splitting the source package. [15:26] I'm seeing not only a divergence of version numbers, but the lowlatency kernel is taking far more time in -proposed. [15:27] This makes no sense as there's very little difference in build flags. [15:58] it failed automated testing [15:58] and you will notice many cloud kernels failed too [15:59] generic is now on 25, for which lowlatency will be respun too [16:00] jammy has no support, and no guarantees that various kernel flavours would go out together. Unlike SRU cycles which we aim to release all kernels together. [16:01] Eickmeyer: what problems arise from different lowlatency build numbers? [16:01] does your daily iso fail to build? [16:02] xnox: No, I'm mostly worried about the security implications in addition to the grub menu ordering if both generic and lowlatency are installed, such as cases where people use ubuntustudio-installer on other flavors. Ubuntu Studio isn't just a flavor, it's also a toolset/configuration. [16:03] We have a package that mitigates the ordering (ubuntustudio-lowlatency-settings), but people don't necessarily have to install it. [16:04] As you know, grub always picks the highest version number of any given kernel as the default. [16:05] BUT, I'm mostly worried that it will fall-behind with security patches as more attention will be given to the generic kernel, unlike before when they were in the same source it forced both to have equal attention. [16:06] Eickmeyer: all releases have -generic kernels that are below and above lowlatency; meaning all releases can have unpredictable grub menu, unless grub.d conf snippet is specified as to which flavour is prefered [16:06] all our kernels have the same support time frame [16:07] jammy has no security support; and you notice that all jammy kernels at the momement are behind security fixes compared with impish/focal/bionic/xenial [16:07] in stable releases; generic and lowlatency are spun together, using the same source code (and security fixes) doh [16:07] Eickmeyer: your concerns and worries are unjust and missplaced. [16:08] the current migration delays of lowlatency appears to be mostly driven by introduction of arm64 support; which appears to be regressing in test results within jammy release. [16:08] xnox: So, when jammy is stable, it generic and lowlatency kernels will be spun together? Is that what I'm understanding? [16:10] yes. [16:10] I'm just looking for reassurances, I'm sorry if i come across as accusatry. [16:10] Ok, that's all I needed to know. [16:10] and GRUB_FLAVOUR_ORDER is required if one always wants "generic" or "lowlatency" as the top boot entry [16:11] because for example in focal today 5.4.0-XX-generic < 5.4.0-XX-lowlatency < 5.15.0-XX-generic < 5.15.0-XX-lowlatency in grub's mind [16:11] depending on which meta's one has installed. [16:11] Yeah, we've got a mechanism in place, and also adds "threadirqs" to the lowlatency kernel command line, because even though it's built with the right flags, threadirqs isn't activated by default (ever). [16:12] (in case somebody installed intentionally or accidentally linux-(generic|lowlatancy|virtual)[[-hwe-20.04]-edge] [16:13] xnox: Either way, thanks for the reassurance. [16:14] Eickmeyer: at least there _is_ lowlatency in jammy-release [16:14] Eickmeyer: we still don't have some kernels in jammy-release that need to go on the iso =))))) [16:14] Yeah, I saw oem is like that currently. [16:18] because I don't understand why some tests are failing :) [16:22] generic -25 failed testing too, but it was manually overridden [16:25] some of them are weird indeed [16:27] like, what's the hwclock test? I don't see it on any other kernel, unstable included [16:37] not true, it's on oem-5.14 too === fling_ is now known as fling