[15:25] <Eickmeyer> 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] <Eickmeyer> I'm seeing not only a divergence of version numbers, but the lowlatency kernel is taking far more time in -proposed.
[15:27] <Eickmeyer> This makes no sense as there's very little difference in build flags.
[15:58] <xnox> it failed automated testing
[15:58] <xnox> and you will notice many cloud kernels failed too
[15:59] <xnox> generic is now on 25, for which lowlatency will be respun too
[16:00] <xnox> 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] <xnox> Eickmeyer:  what problems arise from different lowlatency build numbers?
[16:01] <xnox> does your daily iso fail to build?
[16:02] <Eickmeyer> 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] <Eickmeyer> We have a package that mitigates the ordering (ubuntustudio-lowlatency-settings), but people don't necessarily have to install it.
[16:04] <Eickmeyer> As you know, grub always picks the highest version number of any given kernel as the default.
[16:05] <Eickmeyer> 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] <xnox> 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] <xnox> all our kernels have the same support time frame
[16:07] <xnox> 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] <xnox> in stable releases; generic and lowlatency are spun together, using the same source code (and security fixes) doh
[16:07] <xnox> Eickmeyer:  your concerns and worries are unjust and missplaced.
[16:08] <xnox> 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] <Eickmeyer> xnox: So, when jammy is stable, it generic and lowlatency kernels will be spun together? Is that what I'm understanding?
[16:10] <xnox> yes.
[16:10] <Eickmeyer> I'm just looking for reassurances, I'm sorry if i come across as accusatry.
[16:10] <Eickmeyer> Ok, that's all I needed to know.
[16:10] <xnox> and GRUB_FLAVOUR_ORDER is required if one always wants "generic" or "lowlatency" as the top boot entry
[16:11] <xnox> 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] <xnox> depending on which meta's one has installed.
[16:11] <Eickmeyer> 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] <xnox> (in case somebody installed intentionally or accidentally linux-(generic|lowlatancy|virtual)[[-hwe-20.04]-edge]
[16:13] <Eickmeyer> xnox: Either way, thanks for the reassurance.
[16:14] <xnox> Eickmeyer:  at least there _is_ lowlatency in jammy-release
[16:14] <xnox> Eickmeyer:  we still don't have some kernels in jammy-release that need to go on the iso =)))))
[16:14] <Eickmeyer> Yeah, I saw oem is like that currently.
[16:18] <tjaalton> because I don't understand why some tests are failing :)
[16:22] <tjaalton> generic -25 failed testing too, but it was manually overridden
[16:25] <xnox> some of them are weird indeed
[16:27] <tjaalton> like, what's the hwclock test? I don't see it on any other kernel, unstable included
[16:37] <tjaalton> not true, it's on oem-5.14 too