Re: kernel-2.6.27-0.215.rc1.git4.fc10.i686 oops and no X :(
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 16:18 -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 04:16:39PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:37:32PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote: > > > Dear fellow testers, > > > > > > New kernel oops again and no X when starting it > > > > > > kernel-2.6.27-0.215.rc1.git4.fc10.i686 > > > > > > Here's oops > > > > > > http://www.kerneloops.org/submitresult.php?number=48331 > > > > > > > nasty... did this just start recently? > > > > Any thoughts, Dave? > > > > fwiw this is hitting the BUG_ON in drm_open. > > mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > BUG_ON((dev->dev_mapping != NULL) && >(dev->dev_mapping != inode->i_mapping)); > if (dev->dev_mapping == NULL) > dev->dev_mapping = inode->i_mapping; > mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > should be fixed in 222 or somewhere around that, at least the bug that is open for it said that. Dave. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: When will we stop shipping WLAN improvements ahead of upstream in released Fedora version?
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 05:05:33PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > John W. Linville wrote: >> >> I still think that for continuity's sake f8 and f9 should continue >> to get wireless fixes from 2.6.27. Those should only be specific >> bug fixes (although I suppose there is still time for a new driver), >> so hopefully the nattering nabobs won't be opposed to continuing with >> that part of the original plan. >> > > If you push wireless fixes to -stable Fedora would then get them for "free". > I don't see many wireless patches in there generally, though the ath5k > memory corruption fix just went in. > > And new drivers would be great. Lots of people seem to want ath9k, for > example. > John has been forwarding me fixes, I just haven't gotten around to applying them yet. Will do so tonight. r, Kyle ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: When will we stop shipping WLAN improvements ahead of upstream in released Fedora version?
John W. Linville wrote: I still think that for continuity's sake f8 and f9 should continue to get wireless fixes from 2.6.27. Those should only be specific bug fixes (although I suppose there is still time for a new driver), so hopefully the nattering nabobs won't be opposed to continuing with that part of the original plan. If you push wireless fixes to -stable Fedora would then get them for "free". I don't see many wireless patches in there generally, though the ath5k memory corruption fix just went in. And new drivers would be great. Lots of people seem to want ath9k, for example. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: [PATCH] kernel.spec: adding --with firmware & --without vdso_install build options
Steve Dickson wrote: Chuck Ebbert wrote: Steve Dickson wrote: Now that devel kernels rpms require the kernel-firmware rpm, it makes sense to me that one should be able to build both of them at the same time. So this patch adds the "--with firmware" build option which will allow kernel-firmware rpms to built with kernel rpms. This patch also adds the "--without vdso_install" build option which stop the VDSO binaries from being installed. This cuts down the overall build time especially when you build over NFS like I do.. Signed-Off-By: Steve Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> With one small change we can still support --without firmware. That way the default behavior can be overridden in either case. See below... Sure.. that works... Is there an ETA for these two changes? Applied. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: [PATCH] kernel.spec: adding --with firmware & --without vdso_install build options
Kyle McMartin wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 04:19:07PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: That's what it does. It includes all firmware, even for drivers that don't get built. Look in firmware/Makefile and you'll see it builds lists named fw-shipped-y, fw-shipped-m and fw-shipped- then just merges them to create fw-shipped-all which it uses to build/install the firmware. Does this cover the case of firmware declared in Makefiles in subdirs that are obj-$(CONFIG_i) += subdir/? If so, cool, but I can't be arsed to check. It only does its thing for stuff in firmware/ Every firmware file needs to be moved there; some are not and they don't get into the package. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: [PATCH] kernel.spec: adding --with firmware & --without vdso_install build options
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 04:19:07PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > That's what it does. It includes all firmware, even for drivers that don't get > built. Look in firmware/Makefile and you'll see it builds lists > named fw-shipped-y, fw-shipped-m and fw-shipped- then just merges them to > create fw-shipped-all which it uses to build/install the firmware. > Does this cover the case of firmware declared in Makefiles in subdirs that are obj-$(CONFIG_i) += subdir/? If so, cool, but I can't be arsed to check. cheers, kyle ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: [PATCH] be less annoying on boot
Bill Nottingham wrote: As long as we're printing mostly useless messages on every boot regardless of debug level, make them 5% more amusing. Signed-off-by: Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Kernel not dead yet" Suggested by drago01 on IRC. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: kernel-2.6.27-0.215.rc1.git4.fc10.i686 oops and no X :(
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 04:16:39PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:37:32PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote: > > Dear fellow testers, > > > > New kernel oops again and no X when starting it > > > > kernel-2.6.27-0.215.rc1.git4.fc10.i686 > > > > Here's oops > > > > http://www.kerneloops.org/submitresult.php?number=48331 > > > > nasty... did this just start recently? > > Any thoughts, Dave? > fwiw this is hitting the BUG_ON in drm_open. mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); BUG_ON((dev->dev_mapping != NULL) && (dev->dev_mapping != inode->i_mapping)); if (dev->dev_mapping == NULL) dev->dev_mapping = inode->i_mapping; mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: [PATCH] kernel.spec: adding --with firmware & --without vdso_install build options
Kyle McMartin wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 11:01:17AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: On Tuesday 05 August 2008 09:24:10 Steve Dickson wrote: Chuck Ebbert wrote: Steve Dickson wrote: Now that devel kernels rpms require the kernel-firmware rpm, it makes sense to me that one should be able to build both of them at the same time. So this patch adds the "--with firmware" build option which will allow kernel-firmware rpms to built with kernel rpms. This patch also adds the "--without vdso_install" build option which stop the VDSO binaries from being installed. This cuts down the overall build time especially when you build over NFS like I do.. Signed-Off-By: Steve Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> With one small change we can still support --without firmware. That way the default behavior can be overridden in either case. See below... Sure.. that works... Is there an ETA for these two changes? I don't quite follow how the firmware change is supposed to work... The firmware is currently supposed to be a noarch package, and it gets built in the same pass as the kernel-docs sub-package, so it *shouldn't* be built in the same pass as the kernel. Is this flag to simply override that and build the firmware as an arch-specific package for simplified one-off builds? You bring up a pretty good point here Jarod, what happens with firmware for arch-specific drivers? The Makefile rules will have to be written in such a way that it gets built into the package despite the CONFIG_* symbol being unset on the build arch. That's what it does. It includes all firmware, even for drivers that don't get built. Look in firmware/Makefile and you'll see it builds lists named fw-shipped-y, fw-shipped-m and fw-shipped- then just merges them to create fw-shipped-all which it uses to build/install the firmware. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: kernel-2.6.27-0.215.rc1.git4.fc10.i686 oops and no X :(
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:37:32PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote: > Dear fellow testers, > > New kernel oops again and no X when starting it > > kernel-2.6.27-0.215.rc1.git4.fc10.i686 > > Here's oops > > http://www.kerneloops.org/submitresult.php?number=48331 > nasty... did this just start recently? Any thoughts, Dave? r, Kyle ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: rpms/kernel/devel kernel.spec,1.847,1.848
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 05:48:04AM +, Dave Jones wrote: > > +cp -a acpi config keys linux math-emu media mtd net pcmcia rdma rxrpc > > scsi sound video drm asm-generic > > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/modules/$KernelVer/build/include > > +if [ -f asm ]; then > > + cp -a `readlink asm` > > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/modules/$KernelVer/build/include > > fi > > > > This looks like it will DTRT thing in both cases. Cool. "cp -a asm/. targetdir" would work too. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: [PATCH] kernel.spec: adding --with firmware & --without vdso_install build options
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 11:01:17AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Tuesday 05 August 2008 09:24:10 Steve Dickson wrote: > > Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > Steve Dickson wrote: > > >> Now that devel kernels rpms require the kernel-firmware rpm, it makes > > >> sense to me that one should be able to build both of them at the same > > >> time. So this patch adds the "--with firmware" build option > > >> which will allow kernel-firmware rpms to built with kernel rpms. > > >> > > >> This patch also adds the "--without vdso_install" build option > > >> which stop the VDSO binaries from being installed. This cuts > > >> down the overall build time especially when you build over NFS > > >> like I do.. > > >> Signed-Off-By: Steve Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > With one small change we can still support --without firmware. That way > > > the default behavior can be overridden in either case. See below... > > > > Sure.. that works... Is there an ETA for these two changes? > > I don't quite follow how the firmware change is supposed to work... The > firmware is currently supposed to be a noarch package, and it gets built in > the same pass as the kernel-docs sub-package, so it *shouldn't* be built in > the same pass as the kernel. Is this flag to simply override that and build > the firmware as an arch-specific package for simplified one-off builds? > You bring up a pretty good point here Jarod, what happens with firmware for arch-specific drivers? The Makefile rules will have to be written in such a way that it gets built into the package despite the CONFIG_* symbol being unset on the build arch. r, Kyle ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: [PATCH] kernel.spec: adding --with firmware & --without vdso_install build options
On Tuesday 05 August 2008 09:24:10 Steve Dickson wrote: > Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > Steve Dickson wrote: > >> Now that devel kernels rpms require the kernel-firmware rpm, it makes > >> sense to me that one should be able to build both of them at the same > >> time. So this patch adds the "--with firmware" build option > >> which will allow kernel-firmware rpms to built with kernel rpms. > >> > >> This patch also adds the "--without vdso_install" build option > >> which stop the VDSO binaries from being installed. This cuts > >> down the overall build time especially when you build over NFS > >> like I do.. > >> Signed-Off-By: Steve Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > With one small change we can still support --without firmware. That way > > the default behavior can be overridden in either case. See below... > > Sure.. that works... Is there an ETA for these two changes? I don't quite follow how the firmware change is supposed to work... The firmware is currently supposed to be a noarch package, and it gets built in the same pass as the kernel-docs sub-package, so it *shouldn't* be built in the same pass as the kernel. Is this flag to simply override that and build the firmware as an arch-specific package for simplified one-off builds? -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: rpms/kernel/devel kernel.spec,1.847,1.848
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 05:48:04AM +, Dave Jones wrote: > +cp -a acpi config keys linux math-emu media mtd net pcmcia rdma rxrpc > scsi sound video drm asm-generic > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/modules/$KernelVer/build/include > +if [ -f asm ]; then > + cp -a `readlink asm` > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/modules/$KernelVer/build/include > fi > This looks like it will DTRT thing in both cases. Cool. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: [PATCH] kernel.spec: adding --with firmware & --without vdso_install build options
Chuck Ebbert wrote: > Steve Dickson wrote: >> Now that devel kernels rpms require the kernel-firmware rpm, it makes >> sense to me that one should be able to build both of them at the same >> time. So this patch adds the "--with firmware" build option >> which will allow kernel-firmware rpms to built with kernel rpms. >> >> This patch also adds the "--without vdso_install" build option >> which stop the VDSO binaries from being installed. This cuts >> down the overall build time especially when you build over NFS >> like I do.. >> Signed-Off-By: Steve Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > With one small change we can still support --without firmware. That way > the default behavior can be overridden in either case. See below... Sure.. that works... Is there an ETA for these two changes? steved. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
