Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:52:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > > > > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose > > > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 > > > > kernels > > > > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 > > > > were noted > > > > by tbm [3]. > > > > > > One thing to bear in mind when making this kind of decision it that it > > > seems to take d-i about 2 weeks to transition to a new kernel once the > > > > What are the plans regarding 2.6?? > > It will be 2.6.8. The plans regarding this have been made by the debian-kernel > team over a mont h ago now, and the 2.6.7 kernel has been almost abandoned > since then. And we are not over enjoyed to be told to have to backport all > this amount of work to 2.6.7, plus who know how many fixes where in mainline > 2.6.8. Furthermore many of the debian specific 2.6.7 patches have been > submitted upstream for 2.6.8. > > > Yesterday, I installed a HP Proliant DL240, with Broadcom Gigabit > > Ethernet controllers2.6.7 tg3 module does not seem to support > > these while I've been told that 2.6.8 does. > > Yes, tg3 is one of the things that got fixed in 2.6.8. hotplug and sub don't > play well together with my pegasos box on 2.6.7 too, and we gained at least > s390 as new 2.6 arch with 2.6.8, maybe sparc and m68k too, depending on > deadline. To clarify, this most likely does not work on 2.4.26/27 because some non dsg free firmware was recently removed from. Does 2.6.8 have this code, or is it using the bcm5700 driver, or is there some code that should be backported to 2.4.26/27. All I know is that ever since the firmware was removed people have been complaining, but no one seems to have offered a viable solution. I am all ears. -- Horms
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Sven Luther wrote:
It's a self-built kernel, but without modification.
I neglected to include a modules listing in the bug report. Here are
those myst likely to be involved:
ide_generic 1472 0
sis551316776 1
hpt366 22788 2
ide_disk 19264 5 hpt366
ide_core 138776 5
usb_storage,ide_generic,sis5513,hpt366,ide_disk
sd_mod 21632 0
ata_piix8132 0
libata 41348 1 ata_piix
scsi_mod 124620 3 usb_storage,sd_mod,libata
unix 28592 170
I wonder if your ide chipset got correctly detected (aparently), and if dma
and other such parameters are identic.
The sis5513 is plausible, I know it is used for earlier SiS chipsets.
Here are the kernel messages I think relevant:
PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00)
Uncovering SIS963 that hid as a SIS503 (compatible=0)
Enabling SiS 96x SMBus.
ACPI: PCI Interrupt Routing Table [\_SB_.PCI0._PRT]
I asked because another guy (with a piix chipset though), was claiming that
his chipset was not detected, and thus that dma was not activated.
I clean forgot to explicitly affirm that it has DMA on:
kowari:~# hdparm /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
multcount= 0 (off)
IO_support = 0 (default 16-bit)
unmaskirq= 0 (off)
using_dma= 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead= 256 (on)
geometry = 16383/255/63, sectors = 234439535, start = 0
kowari:~#
I prefer u1 c1 but generally those make little difference.
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 92 MB in 3.04 seconds = 30.23 MB/sec
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hda{,,}
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 112 MB in 3.01 seconds = 37.17 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.05 seconds = 35.43 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.02 seconds = 35.73 MB/sec
kowari:~#
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Sven Luther wrote: I asked because another guy (with a piix chipset though), was claiming that his chipset was not detected, and thus that dma was not activated. If he was using 2.4.27 tell him to use 2.4.26 for now. As I've mentioned in other mails I just fixed 2.4.27, in trunk. -- Joshua Kwan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 09:58:16AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
>
> >>>kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
> >>>
> >>>/dev/hda:
> >>>Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
> >>>/dev/hda:
> >>>Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
> >>>
> >>>/dev/hdg:
> >>>Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.02 seconds = 39.74 MB/sec
> >>>
> >>>/dev/hdg: Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.00 seconds =
> >>>40.00 MB/sec
> >>>kowari:~# uname -r
> >>>2.4.26-1-k7
> >>>kowari:~#
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I have further results, and I've just filed a bug report (confirmation
> >>not in yet so no no).
> >>kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
> >>
> >>/dev/hda:
> >>Timing buffered disk reads: 112 MB in 3.05 seconds = 36.73 MB/sec
> >>
> >>/dev/hda:
> >>Timing buffered disk reads: 110 MB in 3.00 seconds = 36.64 MB/sec
> >>
> >>/dev/hdg:
> >>Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.21 MB/sec
> >>
> >>/dev/hdg:
> >>Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.83 MB/sec
> >>kowari:~# uname -r
> >>2.6.8-1-k7
> >>kowari:~#
> >>
> >>
> >>It's a self-built kernel, but without modification.
> >>
> >>I neglected to include a modules listing in the bug report. Here are
> >>those myst likely to be involved:
> >>ide_generic 1472 0
> >>sis551316776 1
> >>hpt366 22788 2
> >>ide_disk 19264 5 hpt366
> >>ide_core 138776 5
> >>usb_storage,ide_generic,sis5513,hpt366,ide_disk
> >>sd_mod 21632 0
> >>ata_piix8132 0
> >>libata 41348 1 ata_piix
> >>scsi_mod 124620 3 usb_storage,sd_mod,libata
> >>unix 28592 170
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I wonder if your ide chipset got correctly detected (aparently), and if dma
> >and other such parameters are identic.
> >
> >
> >
> The sis5513 is plausible, I know it is used for earlier SiS chipsets.
> Here are the kernel messages I think relevant:
> PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00)
> Uncovering SIS963 that hid as a SIS503 (compatible=0)
> Enabling SiS 96x SMBus.
> ACPI: PCI Interrupt Routing Table [\_SB_.PCI0._PRT]
I asked because another guy (with a piix chipset though), was claiming that
his chipset was not detected, and thus that dma was not activated.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Martin Michlmayr wrote: I talked to Herbert and he said the diagnosis in [2] is correct. Herbert: "Without those patches the IDE driver doesn't work properly as modules. So you need to get the 2.4 maintainers to fix up the patches." Can someone look into this asap? After much cursing at myself I've fixed this in trunk. It turns out I missed a patch to ide-probe.c when migrating to broken-out patches for 2.4.27. The fixed package will be uploaded once I get to talk to Simon about a different minor bug relating to CML1 (and how it sucks.) -- Joshua Kwan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.02 seconds = 39.74 MB/sec
/dev/hdg: Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.00 seconds =
40.00 MB/sec
kowari:~# uname -r
2.4.26-1-k7
kowari:~#
I have further results, and I've just filed a bug report (confirmation
not in yet so no no).
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 112 MB in 3.05 seconds = 36.73 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 110 MB in 3.00 seconds = 36.64 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.21 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.83 MB/sec
kowari:~# uname -r
2.6.8-1-k7
kowari:~#
It's a self-built kernel, but without modification.
I neglected to include a modules listing in the bug report. Here are
those myst likely to be involved:
ide_generic 1472 0
sis551316776 1
hpt366 22788 2
ide_disk 19264 5 hpt366
ide_core 138776 5
usb_storage,ide_generic,sis5513,hpt366,ide_disk
sd_mod 21632 0
ata_piix8132 0
libata 41348 1 ata_piix
scsi_mod 124620 3 usb_storage,sd_mod,libata
unix 28592 170
I wonder if your ide chipset got correctly detected (aparently), and if dma
and other such parameters are identic.
The sis5513 is plausible, I know it is used for earlier SiS chipsets.
Here are the kernel messages I think relevant:
PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00)
Uncovering SIS963 that hid as a SIS503 (compatible=0)
Enabling SiS 96x SMBus.
ACPI: PCI Interrupt Routing Table [\_SB_.PCI0._PRT]
and
libata version 1.02 loaded.
Uniform Multi-Platform E-IDE driver Revision: 7.00alpha2
ide: Assuming 33MHz system bus speed for PIO modes; override with idebus=xx
SIS5513: IDE controller at PCI slot :00:02.5
SIS5513: chipset revision 0
SIS5513: not 100% native mode: will probe irqs later
SIS5513: SiS 962/963 MuTIOL IDE UDMA133 controller
ide0: BM-DMA at 0xf000-0xf007, BIOS settings: hda:DMA, hdb:pio
ide1: BM-DMA at 0xf008-0xf00f, BIOS settings: hdc:pio, hdd:pio
hda: WDC WD1200BB-00DWA0, ATA DISK drive
Using anticipatory io scheduler
ide0 at 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6 on irq 14
hda: max request size: 1024KiB
hda: Host Protected Area detected.
current capacity is 234439535 sectors (120033 MB)
native capacity is 234441648 sectors (120034 MB)
hda: 234439535 sectors (120033 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=16383/255/63,
UDMA(100)
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0: p1 p2 p3 p4 < p5 >
HPT366: IDE controller at PCI slot :00:09.0
I'll paste the full set at the end.
Also, i suppose that this may be the result of the libataization of said
driver, could that be possible ?
I presume you're directing this at "not me?"
Here is the full set of kernel messages:
er 11: 16384 bytes)
Detected 1407.145 MHz processor.
Using pmtmr for high-res timesource
Console: colour dummy device 80x25
Dentry cache hash table entries: 131072 (order: 7, 524288 bytes)
Inode-cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
Memory: 511428k/524224k available (1527k kernel code, 12044k reserved,
694k data, 148k init, 0k highmem)
Checking if this processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor mode... Ok.
Calibrating delay loop... 2793.47 BogoMIPS
Security Scaffold v1.0.0 initialized
Mount-cache hash table entries: 512 (order: 0, 4096 bytes)
CPU: After generic identify, caps: 0183fbff c1c7fbff
CPU: After vendor identify, caps: 0183fbff c1c7fbff
CPU: L1 I Cache: 64K (64 bytes/line), D cache 64K (64 bytes/line)
CPU: L2 Cache: 256K (64 bytes/line)
CPU: After all inits, caps:0183fbff c1c7fbff 0020
Intel machine check architecture supported.
Intel machine check reporting enabled on CPU#0.
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) processor stepping 04
Enabling fast FPU save and restore... done.
Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK.
enabled ExtINT on CPU#0
ESR value before enabling vector:
ESR value after enabling vector:
ENABLING IO-APIC IRQs
init IO_APIC IRQs
IO-APIC (apicid-pin) 2-0, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22,
2-23 not connected.
..TIMER: vector=0x31 pin1=2 pin2=-1
Using local APIC timer interrupts.
calibrating APIC timer ...
. CPU clock speed is 1406.0582 MHz.
. host bus clock speed is 267.0920 MHz.
checking if image is initramfs...it isn't (ungzip failed); looks like an
initrd
Freeing initrd memory: 4492k freed
NET: Registered protocol family 16
PCI: PCI BIOS revision 2.10 entry at 0xfa600, last bus=1
PCI: Using configuration type 1
mtrr: v2.0 (20020519)
ACPI: Subsystem revision 20040326
ACPI: Interpreter enabled
ACPI: Using IOAPIC for interrupt routing
ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [PCI0] (00:00)
PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 0
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 04:01:35PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> John Summerfield wrote:
>
> >Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> >>>fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4
> >>>was new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a
> >>>earlier version of the same chipset.
> >>>
> >>>Here are results on 2.6.7-1-k7:
> >>>/dev/hda:
> >>>Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.02 seconds = 35.78 MB/sec
> >>>
> >>>/dev/hdg:
> >>>Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.93 MB/sec
> >>>kowari:/etc#
> >>>
> >>>Both drives are WD120 Gb (different models), hdg is on an Abit
> >>>hotrod66 (promise chips).
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>And how much you would get in 2.4 ?
> >>
> >>
> >Sorry.
> >
> >kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
> >
> >/dev/hda:
> >Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
> >/dev/hda:
> >Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
> >
> >/dev/hdg:
> >Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.02 seconds = 39.74 MB/sec
> >
> >/dev/hdg: Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.00 seconds =
> >40.00 MB/sec
> >kowari:~# uname -r
> >2.4.26-1-k7
> >kowari:~#
>
>
> I have further results, and I've just filed a bug report (confirmation
> not in yet so no no).
> kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
>
> /dev/hda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 112 MB in 3.05 seconds = 36.73 MB/sec
>
> /dev/hda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 110 MB in 3.00 seconds = 36.64 MB/sec
>
> /dev/hdg:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.21 MB/sec
>
> /dev/hdg:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.83 MB/sec
> kowari:~# uname -r
> 2.6.8-1-k7
> kowari:~#
>
>
> It's a self-built kernel, but without modification.
>
> I neglected to include a modules listing in the bug report. Here are
> those myst likely to be involved:
> ide_generic 1472 0
> sis551316776 1
> hpt366 22788 2
> ide_disk 19264 5 hpt366
> ide_core 138776 5
> usb_storage,ide_generic,sis5513,hpt366,ide_disk
> sd_mod 21632 0
> ata_piix8132 0
> libata 41348 1 ata_piix
> scsi_mod 124620 3 usb_storage,sd_mod,libata
> unix 28592 170
I wonder if your ide chipset got correctly detected (aparently), and if dma
and other such parameters are identic.
Also, i suppose that this may be the result of the libataization of said
driver, could that be possible ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Steve Langasek wrote: We depend on the experts (the kernel team) for the information we need in order to make good decisions -- or better, to help *you* make good decisions. Based on this thread and other discussions, I understand that the current 2.4.26 packages are unsuitable for release because of security bugs, and it looks like the new 2.4.27 packages are closer to being in a releasable state than 2.4.26 is. Compared with this, the NEW delays are minor; I'm happy to stick out my neck to get the 2.4.27 packages processed faster if I know the effort won't be wasted. As a user, I'd prefer to wait a little longer so the experts can get it right; recent history suggest we'll live a long time with the results, so better a little more pain now if it means a better future. -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
John Summerfield wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4
was new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a
earlier version of the same chipset.
Here are results on 2.6.7-1-k7:
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.02 seconds = 35.78 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.93 MB/sec
kowari:/etc#
Both drives are WD120 Gb (different models), hdg is on an Abit
hotrod66 (promise chips).
And how much you would get in 2.4 ?
Sorry.
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.02 seconds = 39.74 MB/sec
/dev/hdg: Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.00 seconds =
40.00 MB/sec
kowari:~# uname -r
2.4.26-1-k7
kowari:~#
I have further results, and I've just filed a bug report (confirmation
not in yet so no no).
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 112 MB in 3.05 seconds = 36.73 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 110 MB in 3.00 seconds = 36.64 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.21 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.83 MB/sec
kowari:~# uname -r
2.6.8-1-k7
kowari:~#
It's a self-built kernel, but without modification.
I neglected to include a modules listing in the bug report. Here are
those myst likely to be involved:
ide_generic 1472 0
sis551316776 1
hpt366 22788 2
ide_disk 19264 5 hpt366
ide_core 138776 5
usb_storage,ide_generic,sis5513,hpt366,ide_disk
sd_mod 21632 0
ata_piix8132 0
libata 41348 1 ata_piix
scsi_mod 124620 3 usb_storage,sd_mod,libata
unix 28592 170
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
* dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-27 21:25]: > The only thing questionable about it, afaict, is the ide dma issue[1], which > appears to have been a problem with our patch set[2], so should be resolvable. > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2004/08/msg00790.html > [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2004/08/msg00880.html I talked to Herbert and he said the diagnosis in [2] is correct. Herbert: "Without those patches the IDE driver doesn't work properly as modules. So you need to get the 2.4 maintainers to fix up the patches." Can someone look into this asap? -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:25:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > > > There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge. > > I wonder what needs to happen to have a formal d-k decision. > > Do other subgroups of Debian have a mechanism for this? Maybe we > > need a designated person or persons who can speak for each arch. > > (Please only reply to debian-kernel on this topic). > Well, ultimately, the decision is with the RMs. But i guess you are as > good as any to take that decision. We depend on the experts (the kernel team) for the information we need in order to make good decisions -- or better, to help *you* make good decisions. Based on this thread and other discussions, I understand that the current 2.4.26 packages are unsuitable for release because of security bugs, and it looks like the new 2.4.27 packages are closer to being in a releasable state than 2.4.26 is. Compared with this, the NEW delays are minor; I'm happy to stick out my neck to get the 2.4.27 packages processed faster if I know the effort won't be wasted. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:25:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > > > There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge. > > > > I wonder what needs to happen to have a formal d-k decision. > > Do other subgroups of Debian have a mechanism for this? Maybe we > > need a designated person or persons who can speak for each arch. > > (Please only reply to debian-kernel on this topic). > > Well, ultimately, the decision is with the RMs. But i guess you are as good as > any to take that decision. Ok, i think this indesicion is more problematic and hurts us more than anything else. There has been rather large people speaking in favor of 2.4.27, anbd only a few issues are 2.4.26 related. I thus propose the following : 1) We will now decide to go with 2.4.27. 2) any issue that comes up with 2.4.27 is not a reason to not use it and revert to 2.4.26, but an incentive to fix it in 2.4.27. 3) i will build powerpc 2.4.27 packages based on the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and no more on the -benh tree which has basically been unmaintained since january or so. Pre-2.4.25 or so, the powerpc kernels where anyway based on the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and the -benh tree only adds support for some newer pmac models, who should be using 2.6 anyway. Now, there is this issue with this guys whose ide chipset is not recognized by the debian 2.4.27 kernel, but ok with both 2.4.26 and pristine upstream 2.4.27. We need to fix this. We also need to find out any other problem that needs fixing, and i now propose that we list those here in a followup of this thread. Does this sound like a good solution ? Indecision only paralizes us, and stops us from taking the action we will anyway have to take in the end. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:25:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > > There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge. > > I wonder what needs to happen to have a formal d-k decision. > Do other subgroups of Debian have a mechanism for this? Maybe we > need a designated person or persons who can speak for each arch. > (Please only reply to debian-kernel on this topic). Well, ultimately, the decision is with the RMs. But i guess you are as good as any to take that decision. > > If you now build and upload linux-kernel-di-alpha 0.62 with 2.4.27, > > you have to build 0.63 that downgrades linux-kernel-di-alpha back to > > 2.4.26 if we don't use 2.4.27 for sarge. 0.61 can't be used for sarge > > because it was built with kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-2.1 which has > > some security problems which were fixed later. > > The only thing questionable about it, afaict, is the ide dma issue[1], which > appears to have been a problem with our patch set[2], so should be resolvable. Let's solve this, and go for 2.4.27 then. Seems the more reasonable course of action to me. Naturally i still need to produce 2.4.27 powerpc packages, will do so nextly. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge. I wonder what needs to happen to have a formal d-k decision. Do other subgroups of Debian have a mechanism for this? Maybe we need a designated person or persons who can speak for each arch. (Please only reply to debian-kernel on this topic). > If you now build and upload linux-kernel-di-alpha 0.62 with 2.4.27, > you have to build 0.63 that downgrades linux-kernel-di-alpha back to > 2.4.26 if we don't use 2.4.27 for sarge. 0.61 can't be used for sarge > because it was built with kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-2.1 which has > some security problems which were fixed later. The only thing questionable about it, afaict, is the ide dma issue[1], which appears to have been a problem with our patch set[2], so should be resolvable. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2004/08/msg00790.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2004/08/msg00880.html
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 11:30:27PM +0100, peter green wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Joey Hess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 27 August 2004 22:59 > > To: debian-release@lists.debian.org; debian-boot@lists.debian.org; > > debian-kernel@lists.debian.org > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge > > > > > > Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > Quoting Joey Hess: > > > > 15. Get ftp-master to remove kernel udebs for the old kernel version > > > > from testing. This will *break* some old released install media > > > > (floppy, netboot, not cdrom), but it's necessary before release. > > > > > > Why is this necessary ? I'm a bit worried that rc1 netinst > > images do no more > > > work when sarge is released ... those images are widespread due to the > > > testing, and it's a pity to make them useless if we don't > > really need to. > > > > GPL compliance mostly. > > > > -- > > see shy jo > > > surely if you are not going to remove the udebs you would not remove the > debs or sources either so there would be no gpl compliance problem it is not easy, as the .udeb source package is not kernel-source versioned, so the same package produce both the older and and the newer set. When the newer ones reach the archive, the source packages is replaced, but not the older packages. Now, a solution would be to have version .udeb source packages as we do for .debs. We have to await NEW processing anyway, so nothing is lost. Friendly, Sven Luther
RE: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
> -Original Message- > From: Joey Hess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 27 August 2004 22:59 > To: debian-release@lists.debian.org; debian-boot@lists.debian.org; > debian-kernel@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge > > > Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Quoting Joey Hess: > > > 15. Get ftp-master to remove kernel udebs for the old kernel version > > > from testing. This will *break* some old released install media > > > (floppy, netboot, not cdrom), but it's necessary before release. > > > > Why is this necessary ? I'm a bit worried that rc1 netinst > images do no more > > work when sarge is released ... those images are widespread due to the > > testing, and it's a pity to make them useless if we don't > really need to. > > GPL compliance mostly. > > -- > see shy jo > surely if you are not going to remove the udebs you would not remove the debs or sources either so there would be no gpl compliance problem --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Norbert Tretkowski wrote: [snip] > > > I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next > > > weekend, please make sure you're using this one, because it'll be > > > build against kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-6, which fixes some security > > > issues. > > > > ... not kernel-image-2.4.27-alpha? > > There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge. > > If you now build and upload linux-kernel-di-alpha 0.62 with 2.4.27, > you have to build 0.63 that downgrades linux-kernel-di-alpha back to > 2.4.26 if we don't use 2.4.27 for sarge. 0.61 can't be used for sarge > because it was built with kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-2.1 which has > some security problems which were fixed later. AFAICS it would be rather something like 0.61sarge1 for sarge, and it is then independent from the decision about 2.4.27. Thiemo
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Quoting Joey Hess: > > 15. Get ftp-master to remove kernel udebs for the old kernel version > > from testing. This will *break* some old released install media > > (floppy, netboot, not cdrom), but it's necessary before release. > > Why is this necessary ? I'm a bit worried that rc1 netinst images do no more > work when sarge is released ... those images are widespread due to the > testing, and it's a pity to make them useless if we don't really need to. GPL compliance mostly. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Quoting Joey Hess: > 15. Get ftp-master to remove kernel udebs for the old kernel version > from testing. This will *break* some old released install media > (floppy, netboot, not cdrom), but it's necessary before release. Why is this necessary ? I'm a bit worried that rc1 netinst images do no more work when sarge is released ... those images are widespread due to the testing, and it's a pity to make them useless if we don't really need to. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
* Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:26:37PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > > * Steve Langasek wrote: > > > I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by > > > Monday. > > > I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next > > weekend, please make sure you're using this one, because it'll be > > build against kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-6, which fixes some security > > issues. > > ... not kernel-image-2.4.27-alpha? There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge. If you now build and upload linux-kernel-di-alpha 0.62 with 2.4.27, you have to build 0.63 that downgrades linux-kernel-di-alpha back to 2.4.26 if we don't use 2.4.27 for sarge. 0.61 can't be used for sarge because it was built with kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-2.1 which has some security problems which were fixed later. Norbert
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:26:37PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > * Steve Langasek wrote: > > I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by > > Monday. > I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next > weekend, please make sure you're using this one, because it'll be > build against kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-6, which fixes some security > issues. ... not kernel-image-2.4.27-alpha? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Sven Luther wrote:
fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4 was
new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a earlier
version of the same chipset.
Here are results on 2.6.7-1-k7:
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.02 seconds = 35.78 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.93 MB/sec
kowari:/etc#
Both drives are WD120 Gb (different models), hdg is on an Abit hotrod66
(promise chips).
And how much you would get in 2.4 ?
Sorry.
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.02 seconds = 39.74 MB/sec
/dev/hdg: Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.00 seconds = 40.00 MB/sec
kowari:~# uname -r
2.4.26-1-k7
kowari:~#
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:10:55PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > >>All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests > >>with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is > >>30% faster with the 2.4 kernel. > >> > >> > > > >Have you reported a bug report on this ? And with which 2.6 kernel was it > >? > > > > > I haven't. I planned on discussing it on debian-user first, and I > mentioned it in passing in another thread and someone else was going to > tell me what I did wrong. > > I posted further details, but there's been no response. > > The kernel is 2.6.7-1-k7; it may be a day or so before I could try 8 as > I'm on dialup and my modem's rather busy atm. > > the mobo's a Gigabyte GA-7S748-L - SiS 748 chipset, LAN. > > fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4 was > new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a earlier > version of the same chipset. > > Here are results on 2.6.7-1-k7: > /dev/hda: > Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.02 seconds = 35.78 MB/sec > > /dev/hdg: > Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.93 MB/sec > kowari:/etc# > > Both drives are WD120 Gb (different models), hdg is on an Abit hotrod66 > (promise chips). And how much you would get in 2.4 ? > >>If something like this is true of ppc too, you wouldn't want to drop 2.4 > >>kernels. > >> > >> > > > >Well, it should be fixed instead. None of upstream (all the linux-ppc > >devleopers) have any interest left for 2.4, so there is really no sane way > >to > >keep the support going unless we do it all ourselves. > > > > > > It's worth testing; if you find no problem you have no problem:-) Well, for that i would need to reboot into 2.4, which is not practical right now. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Christoph Hellwig writes: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > > It will be 2.6.8. > > > > > > If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included > > > in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number is > > > misleading. > > > > Given the diff to .1 is tiny and four-digit version numbers are breaking > > lots of things (there's even rumors of breaking the nptl detection in > > glibc, but given that debian _still_ doesn't have a tls-capable > > toolchain on ppc I couldn't test it) we've decided to stay with 2.6.8. > > please make this decision explicit, document it in a prominent place, > i.e. package description, README.Debian. The changelog entries maybe ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Sven Luther wrote: All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is 30% faster with the 2.4 kernel. Have you reported a bug report on this ? And with which 2.6 kernel was it ? I haven't. I planned on discussing it on debian-user first, and I mentioned it in passing in another thread and someone else was going to tell me what I did wrong. I posted further details, but there's been no response. The kernel is 2.6.7-1-k7; it may be a day or so before I could try 8 as I'm on dialup and my modem's rather busy atm. the mobo's a Gigabyte GA-7S748-L - SiS 748 chipset, LAN. fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4 was new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a earlier version of the same chipset. Here are results on 2.6.7-1-k7: /dev/hda: Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.02 seconds = 35.78 MB/sec /dev/hdg: Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.01 seconds = 39.93 MB/sec kowari:/etc# Both drives are WD120 Gb (different models), hdg is on an Abit hotrod66 (promise chips). If something like this is true of ppc too, you wouldn't want to drop 2.4 kernels. Well, it should be fixed instead. None of upstream (all the linux-ppc devleopers) have any interest left for 2.4, so there is really no sane way to keep the support going unless we do it all ourselves. It's worth testing; if you find no problem you have no problem:-) -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
* Steve Langasek wrote: > I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by > Monday. I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next weekend, please make sure you're using this one, because it'll be build against kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-6, which fixes some security issues. Norbert
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Christoph Hellwig writes: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > It will be 2.6.8. > > > > If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included > > in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number is > > misleading. > > Given the diff to .1 is tiny and four-digit version numbers are breaking > lots of things (there's even rumors of breaking the nptl detection in > glibc, but given that debian _still_ doesn't have a tls-capable > toolchain on ppc I couldn't test it) we've decided to stay with 2.6.8. please make this decision explicit, document it in a prominent place, i.e. package description, README.Debian. Thanks, Matthias
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > It will be 2.6.8. > > If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included > in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number is > misleading. Given the diff to .1 is tiny and four-digit version numbers are breaking lots of things (there's even rumors of breaking the nptl detection in glibc, but given that debian _still_ doesn't have a tls-capable toolchain on ppc I couldn't test it) we've decided to stay with 2.6.8.
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Sven Luther writes: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > > > > > > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to > > > > > propose > > > > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 > > > > > kernels > > > > > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 > > > > > were noted > > > > > by tbm [3]. > > > > > > > > One thing to bear in mind when making this kind of decision it that it > > > > seems to take d-i about 2 weeks to transition to a new kernel once the > > > > > > What are the plans regarding 2.6 ? > > > > It will be 2.6.8. > > If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included > in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number is > misleading. The package is named 2.6.8, but it includes the 2.6.8.1 diffset, i don't know the details, plus some other backports. Exact detail can be found at : http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/kernel/trunk/kernel/source/kernel-source-2.6.8-2.6.8/debian/patches Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Sven Luther writes: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > > > > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose > > > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 > > > > kernels > > > > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 > > > > were noted > > > > by tbm [3]. > > > > > > One thing to bear in mind when making this kind of decision it that it > > > seems to take d-i about 2 weeks to transition to a new kernel once the > > > > What are the plans regarding 2.6 ? > > It will be 2.6.8. If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number is misleading.
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:06:46PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > >> Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring > >>that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from > >>sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep issues[4]), so I'd > >>like to uncover any problems with this proposal quickly. > >> > >> > > > >Because this gives us a shot at having all architectures on the same > >version for sarge (where 2.4.26 does not due to arm), I agree that this > >is the way to go. > > > >I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by > >Monday. > > > >Sven, how far out are the 2.4.27 powerpc debs? If these aren't > >receiving enough attention because 2.6 is such a priority, I think we > >need to seriously consider dropping the 2.4 kernels completely for > >powerpc instead of giving them half-hearted support that will delay the > >release. > > > > > > > > All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests > with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is > 30% faster with the 2.4 kernel. > > If something like this is true of ppc too, you wouldn't want to drop 2.4 > kernels. And BTW, just ran hdparm -tT, seems to be similar from what i remember from 2.4 days. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:06:46PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > >> Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring > >>that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from > >>sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep issues[4]), so I'd > >>like to uncover any problems with this proposal quickly. > >> > >> > > > >Because this gives us a shot at having all architectures on the same > >version for sarge (where 2.4.26 does not due to arm), I agree that this > >is the way to go. > > > >I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by > >Monday. > > > >Sven, how far out are the 2.4.27 powerpc debs? If these aren't > >receiving enough attention because 2.6 is such a priority, I think we > >need to seriously consider dropping the 2.4 kernels completely for > >powerpc instead of giving them half-hearted support that will delay the > >release. > > > > > > > > All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests > with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is > 30% faster with the 2.4 kernel. Have you reported a bug report on this ? And with which 2.6 kernel was it ? > If something like this is true of ppc too, you wouldn't want to drop 2.4 > kernels. Well, it should be fixed instead. None of upstream (all the linux-ppc devleopers) have any interest left for 2.4, so there is really no sane way to keep the support going unless we do it all ourselves. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:48:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels > > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were > > noted > > by tbm [3]. > > > All 2.4 architectures have 2.4.27 kernel images built. alpha, mips > > and s390 have 2.4.27 images already in sarge. hppa, m68k, i386, ia64, > > and mips have images available in sid. arm, powerpc, and sparc have images > > awaiting approval in the NEW queue. > > > linux-kernel-di is at 2.4.26 for alpha, sparc, s390, m68k, and i386. > > These > > packages will need to be updated, and will need to go through the NEW queue. > > linux-kernel-di for arm, hppa and powerpc are on 2.4.25, so will also need > > to > > be updated. ia64, mips and mipsel already have 2.4.27 linux-kernel-di > > packages. > > > Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring > > that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from > > sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep issues[4]), so I'd > > like to uncover any problems with this proposal quickly. > > Because this gives us a shot at having all architectures on the same > version for sarge (where 2.4.26 does not due to arm), I agree that this > is the way to go. > > I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by > Monday. > > Sven, how far out are the 2.4.27 powerpc debs? If these aren't Well, i have something that may work, only one hunk doesn't apply correctly, which means maybe a broken rivafb. I asked benh to have a look at it, but when he hears 2.4, he goes away running. This should be no major problem though, since offb would always work for pmac owners, and they should use 2.6 in any case. > receiving enough attention because 2.6 is such a priority, I think we > need to seriously consider dropping the 2.4 kernels completely for > powerpc instead of giving them half-hearted support that will delay the > release. No, 2.4 has to stay, since there are still a few cases where 2.6 has some trouble, in particular with some oldworld pmacs. In the major cases, 2.6.8 is the way to go, now that the CD/DVD burning problems seem to be solved (i still cannot burn RW media though, but that may not be kernel related). Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose > > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 > > > kernels > > > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were > > > noted > > > by tbm [3]. > > > > One thing to bear in mind when making this kind of decision it that it > > seems to take d-i about 2 weeks to transition to a new kernel once the > > What are the plans regarding 2.6 ? It will be 2.6.8. The plans regarding this have been made by the debian-kernel team over a mont h ago now, and the 2.6.7 kernel has been almost abandoned since then. And we are not over enjoyed to be told to have to backport all this amount of work to 2.6.7, plus who know how many fixes where in mainline 2.6.8. Furthermore many of the debian specific 2.6.7 patches have been submitted upstream for 2.6.8. > Yesterday, I installed a HP Proliant DL240, with Broadcom Gigabit > Ethernet controllers2.6.7 tg3 module does not seem to support > these while I've been told that 2.6.8 does. Yes, tg3 is one of the things that got fixed in 2.6.8. hotplug and sub don't play well together with my pegasos box on 2.6.7 too, and we gained at least s390 as new 2.6 arch with 2.6.8, maybe sparc and m68k too, depending on deadline. > So, at least regarding such (quite widespread?) machines, I would > support the use of 2.6.8. > > PS : this machine installed well with 2.4.26, however, so I'm later > able to switch to 2.6.8 by just waiting it to enter sarge. Ok. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Steve Langasek wrote: Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep issues[4]), so I'd like to uncover any problems with this proposal quickly. Because this gives us a shot at having all architectures on the same version for sarge (where 2.4.26 does not due to arm), I agree that this is the way to go. I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by Monday. Sven, how far out are the 2.4.27 powerpc debs? If these aren't receiving enough attention because 2.6 is such a priority, I think we need to seriously consider dropping the 2.4 kernels completely for powerpc instead of giving them half-hearted support that will delay the release. All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is 30% faster with the 2.4 kernel. If something like this is true of ppc too, you wouldn't want to drop 2.4 kernels. -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
> > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels > > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were > > noted > > by tbm [3]. > > One thing to bear in mind when making this kind of decision it that it > seems to take d-i about 2 weeks to transition to a new kernel once the What are the plans regarding 2.6 ? Yesterday, I installed a HP Proliant DL240, with Broadcom Gigabit Ethernet controllers2.6.7 tg3 module does not seem to support these while I've been told that 2.6.8 does. So, at least regarding such (quite widespread?) machines, I would support the use of 2.6.8. PS : this machine installed well with 2.4.26, however, so I'm later able to switch to 2.6.8 by just waiting it to enter sarge.
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted > by tbm [3]. > All 2.4 architectures have 2.4.27 kernel images built. alpha, mips > and s390 have 2.4.27 images already in sarge. hppa, m68k, i386, ia64, > and mips have images available in sid. arm, powerpc, and sparc have images > awaiting approval in the NEW queue. > linux-kernel-di is at 2.4.26 for alpha, sparc, s390, m68k, and i386. These > packages will need to be updated, and will need to go through the NEW queue. > linux-kernel-di for arm, hppa and powerpc are on 2.4.25, so will also need to > be updated. ia64, mips and mipsel already have 2.4.27 linux-kernel-di > packages. > Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring > that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from > sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep issues[4]), so I'd > like to uncover any problems with this proposal quickly. Because this gives us a shot at having all architectures on the same version for sarge (where 2.4.26 does not due to arm), I agree that this is the way to go. I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by Monday. Sven, how far out are the 2.4.27 powerpc debs? If these aren't receiving enough attention because 2.6 is such a priority, I think we need to seriously consider dropping the 2.4 kernels completely for powerpc instead of giving them half-hearted support that will delay the release. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:45:45AM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote: > > > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose > > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 > > > kernels > > > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were > > > noted > > > by tbm [3]. > > > > On a similar note, it has been known for almost a month now that the 2.6.8 > > kernel packages will be the default 2.6 kernel for sarge, and it seems to > > solve at least one d-i related bug (don't remember the bug number too). > > Powerpc 2.6.8 kernel .udebs are already uploaded, altough the favorable NEW > > processing that .udebs are under don't seem to have extended to those > > packages yet. > > Well, I hope this is only my environment side problem, but I met a > serious problem with both 2.4.27 and 2.6.8 for i386 architecture. > > 2.4.27 won't load specific ide driver for support DMA transfer, and > 2.6.8 dumps oops and crashes immediately around ACPI. (they are > already reported to BTS) I don't know for 2.4.[67], but it is definitive that we are going with 2.6.8, so the ACPI mess will have to be sorted out before we release. > 2.4.26 and 2.6.7 work... For you maybe, but 2.6.7 hangs while hotplug is loading usb devices for me, works fine in 2.6.8. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
> > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels > > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were > > noted > > by tbm [3]. > > On a similar note, it has been known for almost a month now that the 2.6.8 > kernel packages will be the default 2.6 kernel for sarge, and it seems to > solve at least one d-i related bug (don't remember the bug number too). > Powerpc 2.6.8 kernel .udebs are already uploaded, altough the favorable NEW > processing that .udebs are under don't seem to have extended to those > packages yet. Well, I hope this is only my environment side problem, but I met a serious problem with both 2.4.27 and 2.6.8 for i386 architecture. 2.4.27 won't load specific ide driver for support DMA transfer, and 2.6.8 dumps oops and crashes immediately around ACPI. (they are already reported to BTS) 2.4.26 and 2.6.7 work... Thanks, -- Kenshi Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
dann frazier wrote: > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted > by tbm [3]. One thing to bear in mind when making this kind of decision it that it seems to take d-i about 2 weeks to transition to a new kernel once the deb reaches testing. I see that the amount of testing a kernel has received was already discussed in the thread at [1], else that would be my other main point. I think it's up to the RMs whether we can afford waiting some two weeks or not and whether the possibility that one of the new kernels will turn out to have showstopper bugs is worth the new version. One other point to consider is that a goal of d-i has always been to release updates to the installer in between major debian releases, and these updates would likely include new kernels, although how we'd get the debs into stable for the installer to install is unknown so far. Also FWIW, Colin and I discussed making a d-i kernel update checklist, and here's my attempt at that. It's not exactly a trivial process.. 1. New kernel deb enters the archive. 2. Update linux-kernel-di package to use new kernel. 3. Compare available modules in new kernel and add any that are useful for installation to an appropriate udeb. 4. Update build/config/ KERNELVERSION to use new kernel (only commit once udebs are accepted). 5. Make sure images still build, as sometimes new kernels will overflow floppies, etc. If not go back to step 3 and refactor. 6. Do initial test installs, which must be done against unstable to use the new kernel udebs from unstable or using hand-build CD images. 7. New kernel deb enters testing. 8. Update rootskel's debian-installer/kernel/image and/or debian-installer/kernel/image-2.6 templates to use the version number of the new kernel. (Not necessary for all arches.) 9. Update base-installer's postinst to change any hard-coded kernel versions. (Not necessary for all arches.) 10. Update debian-cd's tasks/debian-installer+kernel, tasks/debian-installer, and tasks/exclude-sarge for new kernel. 11. Test to make sure 24, 32, and 48 mb installs still work. New kernels and added/changed modules sometimes break lowmem. 12. Get new debian-cd uploaded and theoretically into testing. (Never done so far.) 13. Get ftp-master to propigate all the updated udebs into testing. Until this point, naive users will be unable to use some sid_d-i install images as the needed udebs will not be in testing. 14. Full user testing, etc. 15. Get ftp-master to remove kernel udebs for the old kernel version from testing. This will *break* some old released install media (floppy, netboot, not cdrom), but it's necessary before release. I'll check this list into svn. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted > by tbm [3]. On a similar note, it has been known for almost a month now that the 2.6.8 kernel packages will be the default 2.6 kernel for sarge, and it seems to solve at least one d-i related bug (don't remember the bug number too). Powerpc 2.6.8 kernel .udebs are already uploaded, altough the favorable NEW processing that .udebs are under don't seem to have extended to those packages yet. > All 2.4 architectures have 2.4.27 kernel images built. alpha, mips > and s390 have 2.4.27 images already in sarge. hppa, m68k, i386, ia64, > and mips have images available in sid. arm, powerpc, and sparc have images > awaiting approval in the NEW queue. There is not yet a 2.4.27 package for powerpc, as i was awaiting benh to fix the rivafb fix that was in his tree and didn't apply cleanly to 2.4.27. I can remove it, since i believe that most people using rivafb on powerpc could as well use offb. Would be nice to have fixed. Will build 2.4.27 packages and upload them tomorrow. 2.4.26 packages are already in the archive though, and will soon be in testing even (2 days left i think). But in any case, apart from a few oldworld cases, powerpc should really be using 2.6.8 kernels. Friendly, Sven Luther
[PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted by tbm [3]. All 2.4 architectures have 2.4.27 kernel images built. alpha, mips and s390 have 2.4.27 images already in sarge. hppa, m68k, i386, ia64, and mips have images available in sid. arm, powerpc, and sparc have images awaiting approval in the NEW queue. linux-kernel-di is at 2.4.26 for alpha, sparc, s390, m68k, and i386. These packages will need to be updated, and will need to go through the NEW queue. linux-kernel-di for arm, hppa and powerpc are on 2.4.25, so will also need to be updated. ia64, mips and mipsel already have 2.4.27 linux-kernel-di packages. Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep issues[4]), so I'd like to uncover any problems with this proposal quickly. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2004/08/msg00586.html [2] http://people.debian.org/~dannf/kernel-stats/kernel-avail.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2004/08/msg00632.html [4] http://people.debian.org/~dannf/kernel-stats/kern-dep.html
