Re: Bug#500358: Fix found
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 22:10:03 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:01PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 18:22:57 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > The first patch is fine. The revert is not. > > Even if the revert is the only way to get X to work on those machines in > > lenny? > > I fail to see the _kernel_ bug it fixes. I now know that this change > triggers a bug in the old (considered broken by design[1]) PCI code in > _X.org_. > The revert doesn't fix a kernel bug. It works around an X bug. I thought that was clear all along, sorry if it wasn't. Even if the revert breaks other things, it wouldn't be a regression from previous releases, though. We're not going to ship a newer Xorg in lenny, so with that revert we'd be fixing a known important regression by reopening a long-standing bug. I agree it's not ideal, but it doesn't seem like we can make everyone happy here, and that seems to be the least bad solution for this bug as far as lenny is concerned. Thanks for considering it. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#500358: Fix found
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:01PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 18:22:57 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > The first patch is fine. The revert is not. > Even if the revert is the only way to get X to work on those machines in > lenny? I fail to see the _kernel_ bug it fixes. I now know that this change triggers a bug in the old (considered broken by design[1]) PCI code in _X.org_. So this bug actually contains three: - The missalignment in the PCI code in the kernel. - The broken PCI access code in X.org. - A request to readd the workaround to the kernel to make X.org work again (and possibly break other things). Bastian [1]: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Warp 7 -- It's a law we can live with. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun e220R RAID & Co-Processors
Michael wrote: Does Debian 4 support rebuilding this server's RAID 1 while online? If not, would a viable option for recovery from hard drive failure be a script which uses ldconfig to change root directories to a hot spare which is identical to the other drive? I also just found out about co-processors availible for this series server and is there any reson to have one? Many thanks, --Mike By co-processor I'm assuming that you're referring to the SSL co-processor/Sun Crypto Accelerator. They're generally only used for https (secure) websites that receive a lot of traffic in order to take the SSL load off of the primary CPU(s). I've also heard of them being used to increase the amount of bandwidth available within SSL encrypted VPN tunnels, but I've personally never tried to use one for either purpose myself. There might also be additional uses for it that I'm not aware of but in general the card is designed to accelerate SSL crypto operations. -Brian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun e220R RAID & Co-Processors
Does Debian 4 support rebuilding this server's RAID 1 while online? If not, would a viable option for recovery from hard drive failure be a script which uses ldconfig to change root directories to a hot spare which is identical to the other drive? I also just found out about co-processors availible for this series server and is there any reson to have one? Many thanks, --Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#500358: Fix found
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 18:22:57 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > The first patch is fine. The revert is not. > Even if the revert is the only way to get X to work on those machines in lenny? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#500358: Fix found
2008/11/11, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Go on and read the discussion of this bug if you really interested why >> these patches differ. > > You want something from us. Also the bugreport reads itself as two > different bugs, which does not make it easier to understand. Bastian, what should I do? Forward you all emails from the bug tracker? Or copy-paste the contents explaning why these two patches differ? I agree with you that it's a bit hard to follow the bug discussion, but this is probaly issue of the bug tracker, not mine. I also had the same problem when I started to search a fix. I don't want anything from you except from what you (the Debian Team) declare as your target - a well-tested, safe and working distro. With working X on SPARC. I did testing, writing the patch, again testing and posting all the results to the bug tracker. My soul is clear. As a programmer, I dream about such perfect users of my products. But what I see now is DD's fetish in arguing and not fixing the bugs. It seems to me that discussion "to fix or not to fix" became bigger than actual discussion of thing related to the bug. And you don't even bother to tell us why you made such decision. You simply tell us that patch is not fine. No further discussion, no suggestion, no interest to the problem. Leave it as it is. The Wall. >> In short, the last patch is the first patch >> merged with Gaudenz's patch which revert changes of SPARC PCI in >> 2.6.26 which breaks xserver-xorg-video-ati package. > > The first patch is fine. The revert is not. Well... The revert fixes X server's bug which exposed on 2.6.26 but works fine on previous kernel. New X server doesn't suffer from it and works on both pre-2.6.26 kernels and the new ones, but backporting this fix to the lenny's X server is very complicated task, AFAIK. So we see, that a well-written code works perfectly everywhere. And this should point us to the statement, that the revert doesn't break anything except buggy programs, like lenny's version of X. But buggy programs which deals with PCI in userspace are rare animals. And most of them, I think are not so important as X. A good question why you should care for X's bugs while being a kernel maintainer. But if religion doesn't allow you to include this patch then go on. I think most users will be excited if they know that during testing there was a fix for "getting this thing work", but some maintainer saw that patch as "not fine enough". This will serve a good service for the Debian reputation. -- Max -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#500358: Fix found
Bastian Blank wrote: You want something from us. Also the bugreport reads itself as two different bugs, which does not make it easier to understand. I beg to differ: if he's the one who's really sorted out this problem then I think we want something from him. Badly. -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#500358: Fix found
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:24AM +0300, Max Dmitrichenko wrote: > > It is the decision of the maintainer if nothing else matches. > Ok. Who is the maintainer? debian-kernel, represented by whom doing the work. > Go on and read the discussion of this bug if you really interested why > these patches differ. You want something from us. Also the bugreport reads itself as two different bugs, which does not make it easier to understand. > In short, the last patch is the first patch > merged with Gaudenz's patch which revert changes of SPARC PCI in > 2.6.26 which breaks xserver-xorg-video-ati package. The first patch is fine. The revert is not. Bastian -- Worlds are conquered, galaxies destroyed -- but a woman is always a woman. -- Kirk, "The Conscience of the King", stardate 2818.9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#500358: Fix found
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 10:30:38PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > SPARC is a traditionally brand
> > architecture. This case
> > affects Ultra 5 and may be several other workstation. So if something
> > doesn't function
> > on one box it doesn't function on a whole generation of boxes. I think this
> > is
> > quite a big part of all Debian SPARC users.
>
> This still does not qualify for the severity "grave":
>
> | makes the package in question unusable or mostly so,
>
> It still runs. And the Sparc machines I use don't show such problems.
Seeing how you're interested in this kind of bureaucratic nitpicking :p
I should point out that "grave" is actually too light a severity for this
bug, and "critical" should be used instead - the kernel upgrade broke the X
server, so it's a critical bug by definition ("makes unrelated software on
the system break"). The part that fit the grave severity was "makes the
package in question mostly unusable", which is what any typical X user would
say in this situation.
In any case this is a pointless exercise, let's just make sure the bug is
fixed and go forward. I hope I'll be verifying the submitted patch on my
Ultra 5 soon.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
