Re: [arch-general] [signoff] kernel26-2.6.38-1
Excerpts from Richard Schütz's message from Wed 16-Mar-11 23:01: > Am 16.03.2011 20:27, schrieb Tobias Powalowski: > >Hi guys, > >please signoff 2.6.38 series for both arches. > > > >Upstream > >changes: > >http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges > > > >Features included: > >- kernel image is now xz compressed > >- NUMA is enabled on x86_64 > >- AUTOSCHED (aka the wonder patch) is enabled > >- aufs2.1 latest snapshot > > > > > >greetings > >tpowa > > No signoff. There are graphic glitches on my netbook that have not > been there in latest 2.6.37. I found an upstream bug report which > seems to deal exactly with my problem: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27572 That bug causes graphic terminals (namely urxvt) almost unusable in my ThinkPad R61 (with Intel GM965) - any new text becomes visible only after focus change or text selection... Cheers, Sergey
Re: [arch-general] Introducing Salt
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Thomas S Hatch > wrote: > > If you are familiar with a project spearheaded by Red Hat called Func, > Salt > > is very similar. > > > > On Thursday I released my first release of the Salt remote execution > > manager, Salt is a tool to allow an admin to execute remote commands on > sets > > of systems over the network in an extremely fast and efficient way. I > have a > > blog post explaining it in better detail here: > > http://red45.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/salt-0-6-0-released/ > > > > Packages are in the AUR! - > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47512 > > > > Tell me what you think! It is of course open source, Apache licence, and > I > > am open to collaboration! > > > > -Thomas S Hatch > > > > Hi Thomas, > > I have seen a great deal of effort on your part in this project. > I congratulate you on your initial release, and best of luck (not that > you need it)! > > Useful link to source: https://github.com/thatch45/salt > Thanks Thomas! In all honesty I have been wanting to do this project for about 2 years, I have studied far too many methods on how to do this right and tried just about every other method and written a number of rpc systems to test which ones worked the best. I hope I have gotten it right! Just as a reference, Thomas has been plowing away at quarters and committed a massive amount of code this week, great work on Thomas Dziedzic's part! All in all I am just excited to see software development in the Arch community! I will persist that the Arch way should attract the best software engineers, because Arch is done right! -Thomas S Hatch
Re: [arch-general] Introducing Salt
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > If you are familiar with a project spearheaded by Red Hat called Func, Salt > is very similar. > > On Thursday I released my first release of the Salt remote execution > manager, Salt is a tool to allow an admin to execute remote commands on sets > of systems over the network in an extremely fast and efficient way. I have a > blog post explaining it in better detail here: > http://red45.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/salt-0-6-0-released/ > > Packages are in the AUR! - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47512 > > Tell me what you think! It is of course open source, Apache licence, and I > am open to collaboration! > > -Thomas S Hatch > Hi Thomas, I have seen a great deal of effort on your part in this project. I congratulate you on your initial release, and best of luck (not that you need it)! Useful link to source: https://github.com/thatch45/salt
[arch-general] Introducing Salt
If you are familiar with a project spearheaded by Red Hat called Func, Salt is very similar. On Thursday I released my first release of the Salt remote execution manager, Salt is a tool to allow an admin to execute remote commands on sets of systems over the network in an extremely fast and efficient way. I have a blog post explaining it in better detail here: http://red45.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/salt-0-6-0-released/ Packages are in the AUR! - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47512 Tell me what you think! It is of course open source, Apache licence, and I am open to collaboration! -Thomas S Hatch
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] kernel26-2.6.38-1
Am 19.03.2011 16:52, schrieb Richard Schütz: Am 19.03.2011 16:41, schrieb Jeff Cook: On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Richard Schütz wrote: On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jeff Cook wrote: Having issues here with ath9k, much slower than it was with 2.6.37. Found this bug re: Ubuntu on Launchpad, haven't checked the kernel tracker: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/735171 Looks like I'm also getting bit by this on another machine that uses ath5k. Watching wireshark on two machines, almost all packets sent to the ath5k card never make it with 2.6.38. I also tested with a compat-wireless tarball from 2011-03-18 with the same results. Reverting to 2.6.37 makes the issue go away. Definitely seems like an unsafe upgrade at least for Atheros users. I can confirm that. When running 2.6.38 my downstream with ath9k is about 13 times slower compared to 2.6.37.4. -- Regards, Richard Schütz What kind of network are you using? A person in IRC suggested that these issues might only exist on certain (relatively rare) networks, like 802.11n or ad-hoc. It is a 802.11n network and they aren't that rare today. Every access point in my neighbourhood is using that standard. I'll try to reproduce the issue after switching my access point to 802.11g only. The issue is actually only present in 802.11n mode. I noticed that the "Invalid misc" counter shown by iwconfig rises quickly. -- Regards, Richard Schütz
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] kernel26-2.6.38-1
Just as a side note: I'm using 2.6.38 without problems here, with fair realtime performance btw.
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] kernel26-2.6.38-1
Am 19.03.2011 16:41, schrieb Jeff Cook: On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Richard Schütz wrote: On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jeff Cook wrote: Having issues here with ath9k, much slower than it was with 2.6.37. Found this bug re: Ubuntu on Launchpad, haven't checked the kernel tracker: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/735171 Looks like I'm also getting bit by this on another machine that uses ath5k. Watching wireshark on two machines, almost all packets sent to the ath5k card never make it with 2.6.38. I also tested with a compat-wireless tarball from 2011-03-18 with the same results. Reverting to 2.6.37 makes the issue go away. Definitely seems like an unsafe upgrade at least for Atheros users. I can confirm that. When running 2.6.38 my downstream with ath9k is about 13 times slower compared to 2.6.37.4. -- Regards, Richard Schütz What kind of network are you using? A person in IRC suggested that these issues might only exist on certain (relatively rare) networks, like 802.11n or ad-hoc. It is a 802.11n network and they aren't that rare today. Every access point in my neighbourhood is using that standard. I'll try to reproduce the issue after switching my access point to 802.11g only. -- Regards, Richard Schütz
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] kernel26-2.6.38-1
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Richard Schütz wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jeff Cook >> wrote: >>> Having issues here with ath9k, much slower than it was with 2.6.37. >>> Found this bug re: Ubuntu on Launchpad, haven't checked the kernel >>> tracker: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/735171 >>> >> >> Looks like I'm also getting bit by this on another machine that uses >> ath5k. Watching wireshark on two machines, almost all packets sent to >> the ath5k card never make it with 2.6.38. I also tested with a >> compat-wireless tarball from 2011-03-18 with the same results. >> Reverting to 2.6.37 makes the issue go away. Definitely seems like an >> unsafe upgrade at least for Atheros users. > > I can confirm that. When running 2.6.38 my downstream with ath9k is about 13 > times slower compared to 2.6.37.4. > > -- > Regards, > Richard Schütz > What kind of network are you using? A person in IRC suggested that these issues might only exist on certain (relatively rare) networks, like 802.11n or ad-hoc. I bisected and wound up with 8aec7af99b1e45 as the culprit, though that doesn't make much sense as that change was merged into 2.6.37. Here is my git bisect log: git bisect start '--' 'drivers/net/wireless/' # bad: [7d2c16befae67b901e6750b845661c1fdffd19f1] ath9k: fix aggregation related interoperability issues git bisect bad 7d2c16befae67b901e6750b845661c1fdffd19f1 # good: [3c0eee3fe6a3a1c745379547c7e7c904aa64f6d5] Linux 2.6.37 git bisect good 3c0eee3fe6a3a1c745379547c7e7c904aa64f6d5 # bad: [bfe3850b0cfca6ba64395e2705d9a51cd044f374] rndis_wlan: scanning, workaround device returning incorrect bssid-list item count. git bisect bad bfe3850b0cfca6ba64395e2705d9a51cd044f374 # good: [f7ec8fb4d6f8f3ecb8b11e9e46ece95aa66139cc] ath9k_hw: Fix eeprom offset for AR9287 devices (PCI/USB) git bisect good f7ec8fb4d6f8f3ecb8b11e9e46ece95aa66139cc # bad: [692d2c0fb36c02ad07d54641c26f48e644b27fbd] b43: rename config option for N-PHY, drop BROKEN git bisect bad 692d2c0fb36c02ad07d54641c26f48e644b27fbd # bad: [8efa5d7d6ad307ae2d220def37ca89594062c40d] ath5k: Check if pci pdev struct is initialized in common functions. git bisect bad 8efa5d7d6ad307ae2d220def37ca89594062c40d # good: [61cde037234c4b8e6497a23f5f236c64cbf9d41d] ath5k: Extend rate_duration git bisect good 61cde037234c4b8e6497a23f5f236c64cbf9d41d # bad: [61790c5f3c5f158821821a00797d94504531839f] iwlagn: fix microcode error on 4965 git bisect bad 61790c5f3c5f158821821a00797d94504531839f # bad: [8aec7af99b1e4594c4bb9e1c48005e6111f97e8e] ath5k: Support synth-only channel change for AR2413/AR5413 git bisect bad 8aec7af99b1e4594c4bb9e1c48005e6111f97e8e # good: [b2b4c69f682a2868411899a77842061dd745884f] ath5k: Tweak power detector delays on RF5111/RF5112 git bisect good b2b4c69f682a2868411899a77842061dd745884f # good: [f08fbf6cf4a31c8df52b21440c7a7e6fbe474b28] ath5k: Update PLL programming for turbo/half/quarter git bisect good f08fbf6cf4a31c8df52b21440c7a7e6fbe474b28 # good: [4c57581d939fd0f8f244b9730812069f4dac308a] ath5k: Skip powertable setting when we are on the same channel git bisect good 4c57581d939fd0f8f244b9730812069f4dac308a I may have done something wrong, I guess. I was testing with compat-wireless and not applying patches uniformly really, so they may have mucked things up, but I was getting some success with commits from Nov. 23, 2010 as well as some failures. I will try bisecting again soon and will probably just end up rebooting and testing each kernel individually that way, which is a seriously lame pain in the rear way to test just one driver.
[arch-general] [PATCH][initscripts] depmod: do not update module dependencies on boot
Any comments to this patch? If there are no objections, could it be applied? Cheers, Tom On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote: > Running depmod on boot should not be necessary as the packages > installing modules should be responsible for updating the dependencies > themselves (and they do, at least the packages I looked through). > > Furthermore, as modules can be loaded very early in boot (by e.g. > udev), but depmod can only be called after root is mounted rw, we can > not rely on depmod fixing broken module dependencies. > > Signed-off-by: Tom Gundersen > --- > rc.sysinit | 2 -- > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/rc.sysinit b/rc.sysinit > index 1dfae33..dfb0050 100755 > --- a/rc.sysinit > +++ b/rc.sysinit > @@ -351,8 +351,6 @@ if [[ $NISDOMAINNAME ]]; then > status "Setting NIS Domain Name: $NISDOMAINNAME" > /bin/nisdomainname "$NISDOMAINNAME" > fi > > -status "Updating Module Dependencies" /sbin/depmod -A > - > # Flush old locale settings > : >| /etc/profile.d/locale.sh > /bin/chmod 755 /etc/profile.d/locale.sh > -- > 1.7.4.1 >
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] kernel26-2.6.38-1
Am 19.03.2011 09:04, schrieb Jeff Cook: On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jeff Cook wrote: Hi guys, please signoff 2.6.38 series for both arches. Having issues here with ath9k, much slower than it was with 2.6.37. Found this bug re: Ubuntu on Launchpad, haven't checked the kernel tracker: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/735171 Looks like I'm also getting bit by this on another machine that uses ath5k. Watching wireshark on two machines, almost all packets sent to the ath5k card never make it with 2.6.38. I also tested with a compat-wireless tarball from 2011-03-18 with the same results. Reverting to 2.6.37 makes the issue go away. Definitely seems like an unsafe upgrade at least for Atheros users. I can confirm that. When running 2.6.38 my downstream with ath9k is about 13 times slower compared to 2.6.37.4. -- Regards, Richard Schütz
Re: [arch-general] Where is the boot log?
On 19/03/11 09:34, SanskritFritz wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Ben Tartsa wrote: Scroll lock should work while booting. It does work, yes. But dont try it at my machine, where all messages float by like lightning. On this website: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Disable_Clearing_of_Boot_Messages you can find plenty possible ways to do it.
Re: [arch-general] Where is the boot log?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Ben Tartsa wrote: > Scroll lock should work while booting. > > It does work, yes. But dont try it at my machine, where all messages float by like lightning.
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] kernel26-2.6.38-1
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jeff Cook wrote: >> Hi guys, >> please signoff 2.6.38 series for both arches. > > Having issues here with ath9k, much slower than it was with 2.6.37. > Found this bug re: Ubuntu on Launchpad, haven't checked the kernel > tracker: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/735171 > Looks like I'm also getting bit by this on another machine that uses ath5k. Watching wireshark on two machines, almost all packets sent to the ath5k card never make it with 2.6.38. I also tested with a compat-wireless tarball from 2011-03-18 with the same results. Reverting to 2.6.37 makes the issue go away. Definitely seems like an unsafe upgrade at least for Atheros users.
