Bug#663041: please enable ib_srpt
On 03/08/2012 01:57 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: reassign 663041 src:linux-2.6 3.3~rc6-1~experimental.1 found 663041 linux-2.6/3.2.9-1 tags 663041 + upstream patch quit Adam Heath wrote: [commit a42d985bd5b234da8b61347a78dc3057bf7bb94d, applied during the 3.3 merge window] That enables SRP target support for Infiniband. For 3.3 release candidates in experimental, I believe you are requesting that CONFIG_INFINIBAND_SRPT=m be added to the kernel configuration in topconfig. For wheezy, a backport of the driver would presumably be useful. Thanks for a pleasant report, Jonathan Additionally, upgrading from 3.2.0 to 3.3.0-rc6 increased my ipoib bandwidth from 130MB/s to 283MB/s. I'm not certain which patchset does that. But that should really be a separate bug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f586725.8050...@brainfood.com
Bug#663041: please enable ib_srpt
Package: linux-image-3.3.0-rc6-amd64 Version: 3.3~rc6-1~experimental.1 Severity: wishlist http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commit;h=f59e842fc0871cd5baa213dc32e0ce8e5aaf4758 That enables SRP target support for Infiniband. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f585ed7.1030...@brainfood.com
Bug#656668: 3.2 has different /sys/class/power
package: linux-image-3.2.0-1-amd64 version: 3.2.1-1 severity: major linux 3.2 changed what is available in /sys/class/power_supply. wmbattery worked fine with 3.1, but the new 3.2 upgrade broke it. This is a kernel problem, please change this back. You can add the new ADP1, but don't remove the BAT0. It's a userspace/kernel breakage, the kernel shouldn't be doing that. From 3.2: == root@urk:~# tree /sys/class/power_supply/ADP1/ /sys/class/power_supply/ADP1/ ├── device - ../../../ACPI0003:00 ├── online ├── power │ ├── async │ ├── autosuspend_delay_ms │ ├── control │ ├── runtime_active_kids │ ├── runtime_active_time │ ├── runtime_enabled │ ├── runtime_status │ ├── runtime_suspended_time │ └── runtime_usage ├── subsystem - ../../../../../../class/power_supply ├── type └── uevent == From 3.1: == root@urk:~# tree /sys/class/power_supply/BAT0/ /sys/class/power_supply/BAT0/ ├── alarm ├── cycle_count ├── device - ../../../PNP0C0A:00 ├── energy_full ├── energy_full_design ├── energy_now ├── manufacturer ├── model_name ├── power │ ├── async │ ├── autosuspend_delay_ms │ ├── control │ ├── runtime_active_kids │ ├── runtime_active_time │ ├── runtime_enabled │ ├── runtime_status │ ├── runtime_suspended_time │ └── runtime_usage ├── power_now ├── present ├── serial_number ├── status ├── subsystem - ../../../../../../class/power_supply ├── technology ├── type ├── uevent ├── voltage_min_design └── voltage_now == -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f19c34f.3010...@brainfood.com
Bug#656668: 3.2 has different /sys/class/power
severity 656668 minor thanks (haven't actually gotten your mail yet, it's stuck due to greylisting; I'm writing this based on what I see in website). Actually, this is not the correct bug. My laptop lost complete power. The battery was fully drained. I plugged in it, booted it up, and there was *no* BAT0 in that folder. After some amount of charging, I rebooted back into 3.1, and there was the BAT0, but no ADP1. Rebooted back into 3.2, and there was both ADP1 and BAT0. So, the bug here is that when the battery has 0% charge, linux isn't adding it to the list. Sounds like a null vs. 0 type simple logic error. Additionally, linux only appears to enumerate batteries at system boot. What would happen if a battery was added/removed later on? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f19cba0.9010...@brainfood.com
Bug#656668: 3.2 has different /sys/class/power
I use module-init-tools 3.16-1. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f19d3ec.3070...@brainfood.com
Re: bits from the release team
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Margarita Manterola wrote: On 1/3/06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it should be together with the rest of base, i believe. [...] We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time with this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release every 2 month. So, we will be asking the question about the upgradability of the kernel later during this release process, and i believe that it is not something which should be ignored. Already you are considering upgrading the sarge kernel which has some trouble booting on a rather non-negligible quantity of hardware, so having a two version outdated kernel at release time is not nice. I really don't think that having a four months out-dated kernel is that bad. What is really important is to have stable kernels. Past experience with the modified 2.6 release policy has shown that some 2.6 kernels are pretty stable and some others are quite crappy. Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other newer things newer kernels might require. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#324583: #324583: status of broken apply/unapply scripts
This bug was tagged pending on Aug 24, and was s upposed to be fixed in -6. However, we are at -10, and it is still broken. I need this fixed so that I can upload new xen packages, as they require pristine source to generate a patch against. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#324583: #324583: status of broken apply/unapply scripts
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 03:40:06PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: This bug was tagged pending on Aug 24, and was s upposed to be fixed in -6. However, we are at -10, and it is still broken. I need this fixed so that I can upload new xen packages, as they require pristine source to generate a patch against. We are moving to 2.6.14 as soon as it is out anyway, and there will be no 2.6.12 upload anymore hopefully. Can you check if this problem is still present in 2.6.14-rc5-1 currently present in experimental ? So? It was supposed to be fixed in -6, but wasn't. Something is wrong with the communication of the team. Why can't a simple upload be done with the fix? And no, I can't check .14. Xen doesn't work with that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#324583: #324583: status of broken apply/unapply scripts
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Sven Luther wrote: Well, who told you it was supposed to be fixed, can you point to the svn commit fixing it ? Did you even read the bug that is mail is a part of? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
