On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> It also has an amdgpu fixes pull, with lots of ongoing work on Vega10
> which is new in this kernel and is preliminary support so may have a
> fair bit of movement.
Note: I will *not* be taking these kinds of pull requests after rc1.
If Ve
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:04:35PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:34:53AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >>
> >> The attached patch should fix the issue.
> >
> > Sorry, but it does not. I've still the same is
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:49:41AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:34:53AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:34:53AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:58 AM
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2010, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> Hi Linus,
>>
>> one fb layer fix in a flag I introduced,
>>
>> the rest are drm fixes:
>> radeon fixes: the larger ones in the command stream checker for older cards,
>> which was caus
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:49:41AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:31 AM,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:49:41AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:31 AM,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:49:41AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:03:04AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> >
>> > one fb layer fix in a flag I introduced,
>> >
>> > the rest are drm fixes:
>> > radeon fixes:
On Wednesday, June 30, 2010, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> one fb layer fix in a flag I introduced,
>
> the rest are drm fixes:
> radeon fixes: the larger ones in the command stream checker for older cards,
> which was causing a lot of userspace apps to fail. Also some powerpc server
> f
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:03:04AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> >
>> > one fb layer fix in a flag I introduced,
>> >
>> > the rest are drm fixes:
>> > radeon fixes:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:00:32PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:03:04AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Linus,
> >>>
> >>> one fb layer f
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:03:04AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > one fb layer fix in a flag I introduced,
> >
> > the rest are drm fixes:
> > radeon fixes: the larger ones in the command stream checker for older cards,
> >
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:03:04AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Linus,
>>>
>>> one fb layer fix in a flag I introduced,
>>>
>>> the rest are drm fixes:
>>> radeon fixes:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:03:04AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> Hi Linus,
>>
>> one fb layer fix in a flag I introduced,
>>
>> the rest are drm fixes:
>> radeon fixes: the larger ones in the command stream checker for older cards,
>>
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:03:04AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> one fb layer fix in a flag I introduced,
>
> the rest are drm fixes:
> radeon fixes: the larger ones in the command stream checker for older cards,
> which was causing a lot of userspace apps to fail. Also some powerp
2010/6/30 Dave Airlie :
> Hi Linus,
>
> one fb layer fix in a flag I introduced,
>
> the rest are drm fixes:
> radeon fixes: the larger ones in the command stream checker for older cards,
> which was causing a lot of userspace apps to fail. Also some powerpc server
> fixes.
> along with some updat
W dniu 1 kwietnia 2010 09:43 użytkownik Dave Airlie napisał:
> 2010/4/1 Rafał Miłecki :
>> W dniu 30 marca 2010 09:07 użytkownik Dave Airlie
>> napisał:
>>> 2010/3/30 Dave Airlie :
[re-pull request]
>>>
>>> Actually Linus, don't bother, consider this revoked, I'm going to kill
>>> the
W dniu 1 kwietnia 2010 09:32 użytkownik Dave Airlie napisał:
> a pull from nouveau + minor drm core fixes,
>
> Lots of radeon fixes from a...@amd, main thing is turning off the use of
> the hw i2c engine by default again, it was causing problems for some
> people, we now have a module option. Lots
2010/4/1 Rafał Miłecki :
> W dniu 30 marca 2010 09:07 użytkownik Dave Airlie napisał:
>> 2010/3/30 Dave Airlie :
>>>
>>> [re-pull request]
>>
>> Actually Linus, don't bother, consider this revoked, I'm going to kill
>> the GPU reset code
>> and re-send this tomorrow, its just a mess to get it back
W dniu 30 marca 2010 09:07 użytkownik Dave Airlie napisał:
> 2010/3/30 Dave Airlie :
>>
>> [re-pull request]
>
> Actually Linus, don't bother, consider this revoked, I'm going to kill
> the GPU reset code
> and re-send this tomorrow, its just a mess to get it back out of the
> tree at this point,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 07:24:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > Actually Linus, don't bother, consider this revoked, I'm going to kill
> > the GPU reset code and re-send this tomorrow, its just a mess to get it
> > back out of the tree at t
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> Actually Linus, don't bother, consider this revoked, I'm going to kill
> the GPU reset code and re-send this tomorrow, its just a mess to get it
> back out of the tree at this point,
>
> but I realised I was falling back to the old ways, of putting
2010/3/30 Dave Airlie :
>
> [re-pull request]
Actually Linus, don't bother, consider this revoked, I'm going to kill
the GPU reset code
and re-send this tomorrow, its just a mess to get it back out of the
tree at this point,
but I realised I was falling back to the old ways, of putting things
wit
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 05:34 +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> Original pull req below + reverts the fallback placement change which had
> a side effect of causing more lockups on some AGP systems (this is a bug in
> the AGP drivers that needs to be tracked down), [...]
While I was able to work aro
2010/3/30 Michel Dänzer :
> On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 05:34 +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> Original pull req below + reverts the fallback placement change which had
>> a side effect of causing more lockups on some AGP systems (this is a bug in
>> the AGP drivers that needs to be tracked down), [...]
>
On Don, 2010-03-25 at 03:35 +, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> [...] I've merged Jerome's GPU recovery code, as I'd much rather users
> had some of hope of recovering from their GPU locking up than a dead
> box. It seems to work for quite a lot of people that have tested it,
> and it won't make a GPU
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> 2010/3/25 Dave Airlie :
>> Some nouveau updates + misc drm core fixes,
>>
>> radeon kms: mostly fixes, however a cleanup to the ugly asic tables to
>> avoid drift between C prototypes moves some stuff around, and I've merged
>> Je
Hi Dave,
2010/3/25 Dave Airlie :
> Some nouveau updates + misc drm core fixes,
>
> radeon kms: mostly fixes, however a cleanup to the ugly asic tables to
> avoid drift between C prototypes moves some stuff around, and I've merged
> Jerome's GPU recovery code, as I'd much rather users had some of h
> They want the benefits of lots of testers, without wanting to be
> courteous to those testers.
Except for the small rather important detail that the Nouveau developers
didn't ask for it to be merged in the first place.
---
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:30:38AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > FWIW, Option "ModulePath" in xorg.conf lets you more or less do this;
> > the usual approach is to install your new server + drivers into a
> > separate prefix.
>
> The thing is, Xorg has
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 11:28:16AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 09:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > Why are people making excuses for bad programming and bad technology?
> >
> > Is not bad technology is new
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 08:52:35PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > They want the benefits of lots of testers, without wanting to be
> > courteous to those testers.
>
> Except for the small rather important detail that the Nouveau developers
> didn't ask for it to be merged in the first place.
>
*Some
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200, Daniel Stone said:
> So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
> absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool,
> that worked really well for X
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 09:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Why are people making excuses for bad programming and bad technology?
>
> Is not bad technology is new technology, the API have to change faster ,
> unless you want wait 2 years until
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 09:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Why are people making excuses for bad programming and bad technology?
Is not bad technology is new technology, the API have to change faster ,
unless you want wait 2 years until get "stable" .
--
Sérgio M. B.
smime.p7s
Description:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:
>
> You shouldn't expect, by now, upgrade drm kernel without update libdrm
> or at least recompile libdrm.
Why?
Why shouldn't I expect that? I already outlined exactly _how_ it could be
done.
Why are people saying that technology has to suck?
Hi,
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 10:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> it difficult to have some libdrm that can handle both
> versions.
You shouldn't expect, by now, upgrade drm kernel without update libdrm
or at least recompile libdrm.
So when you saw a error message "driver nouveau 0.0.n+1 and have 0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 2010-03-05 22:51 schrieb ty...@mit.edu:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:46AM -0800, Corbin Simpson wrote:
>> If distros want to run weird experiments on their users, let them!
>> Sure, sometimes bad things happen, but sometimes good things happen
>>
>
> Distro's that want to have a good reputation need to have a higher
> standard than, "hey, it's allowed by the GPL." And maybe if we are
> sinking to the point where people are going to use "stable means ABI
> breakages are allowed", we need to change the rules, since people want
> to quote rul
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> The thing I objected to, in the VERY BEGINNING in this thread, i the fact
> that the thing was done in such a way that it's basically impossible to
> support the old/new ABI at all!
[...]
> The way this was done, it's apparently basically i
On 03/05/2010 09:42 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 10:17 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>>> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
>>> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:46AM -0800, Corbin Simpson wrote:
> If distros want to run weird experiments on their users, let them!
> Sure, sometimes bad things happen, but sometimes good things happen
> too. ConsoleKit, DeviceKit, HAL, NetworkManager, KMS, yaird, dracut,
> Plymouth, the list goes
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Ben Skeggs wrote:
>> The F13 packages *will* work, so long as you're not bisecting back and
>> forth.
>
> How do I install just the F13 libdrm thing, without changing everything
> else? I'm willing to try. We can make it p
Strawman, mostly because all distros suck, the less patches you apply the
less likely things are to work, LFS is the most fragile thing out there,
etc. Hurp derp.
If you need a feature not in the distro, and it is needed because you have
installed something not in the distro or not new enough, you
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Corbin Simpson
wrote:
> I was trying my hardest to not say anything, but...
>
> [blah blah Fedora blah Ubuntu blah staging blah blah]
>
> That said... Code probably is moving too fast inside nouveau. There is
> a bit of a wall to go through to get new patches upstr
> So overall, I'd say that we spent about a month of developer time
> at least between jbarnes, ickle, and myself, on extending the execbuf
> interface to add a flag saying "dear kernel, please don't do this bit of
> work on this buffer, because I don't need it and it makes things slow."
Perhaps t
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:21:29 +, Alan Cox wrote:
> Serious discussion point perhaps should be: is the libdrm so close to the
> kernel it ought to be in the same git tree ? Alternatively does it need
> to be easier to have multiple Nouveau libdrms autoselected according to
> the kernel side versi
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:46 AM, wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>
>> So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
>> code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
>> absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:04:14PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> You can only see it as malicious if you assume they ever had some reason
> to keep compatibility or had promised it somewhere. Quite the reverse
> happened, and they never asked to be upstream in the first place.
The reason why this threa
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
> absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool,
> that worked really w
On 03/05/2010 10:17 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
>> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
>> and making kernel development difficult for
* Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On the bright side, all this hubbub sends a very positive message to the
> noveau development crew. Folks, your work is important. I'd be proud as a
> peacock :)
Heh, most definitely so!
Noveau really is a game-changer i think, it's a big break-through for Xorg
I
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alan Cox
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:02:17 +
>
>>> You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
>>> and then throw your hands up in the air and say "I'm not willing to
>>> support this in a reasonable way."
>
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:31:29PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:06:26 -0800 (PST)
> David Miller wrote:
>
> > From: Daniel Stone
> > Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200
> >
> > > So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> > > code for the Linux
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Look at who I screamed at. Dave Airlie. The guy who works for Red Hat. The
>> guy who is, as far as I know, effectively in charge of that whole
>> integration. Yeah, I realize that there are other people (Kyle?) involved,
>> and maybe Dave isn't as central as I think he is, bu
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
> absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever?
I think that's what David ended up saying, but
> Look at who I screamed at. Dave Airlie. The guy who works for Red Hat. The
> guy who is, as far as I know, effectively in charge of that whole
> integration. Yeah, I realize that there are other people (Kyle?) involved,
> and maybe Dave isn't as central as I think he is, but I learnt from last
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> > So the watershed moment was _never_ the "Linus merged it". The watershed
> > moment was always "Fedora started shipping it". That's when the problems
> > with a standard upstream kernel started.
> >
> > Why is that so hard for people to understand?
>
>
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> FWIW, Option "ModulePath" in xorg.conf lets you more or less do this;
> the usual approach is to install your new server + drivers into a
> separate prefix.
The thing is, Xorg has - and I think for _very_ good reasons - deprecated
using xorg.conf at
> The thing I objected to, in the VERY BEGINNING in this thread, i the fact
> that the thing was done in such a way that it's basically impossible to
> support the old/new ABI at all!
What did you expect them to do. They said when you first forced a merge
that they would do this. They have no c
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:06:26 -0800 (PST)
David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Stone
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200
>
> > So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> > code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
> > absolutely rock-solid st
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:53:46 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> >
> > Whereas everytime I wanted to do that with Xorg it was such a pain that
> > I want to keep away from that mess.
>
> Actually, take it from me: Xorg is _pleasant_ to test thes
> I think you need to be clearer about that. Your distribution packaging
> may not support that out of the box. There are a variety of ways to do
> almsot all of this including having entire parallel X installs for
> development work.
Sure, but each user must manually find out how to setup that, a
> So the watershed moment was _never_ the "Linus merged it". The watershed
> moment was always "Fedora started shipping it". That's when the problems
> with a standard upstream kernel started.
>
> Why is that so hard for people to understand?
So why are you screaming at the DRM and Nouveau peop
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Yeah perhaps Fedora should have pushed an update that was smart enough to
> handle the Nouveau old/new ABI before the patch went upstream. Hindsight
> is an exact science.
Alan - it seems you're missing the whole point.
The thing I objected to, in the VE
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:44:07 +0100
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> It's a bit as if we split up the kernel into 'microkernel' components, did a
> VFS ABI, MM ABI, drivers ABI, scheduler ABI, networking ABI and arch ABIs,
> and
> then tried to develop them as separate components.
>
> If we did then then Li
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:03 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > Two wrong choices don't make a right.
> >
> > So unmerge it.
>
> That's what I told people I can do (I'd just revert that commit).
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> > You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
> > and then throw your hands up in the air and say "I'm not willing to
> > support this in a reasonable way."
>
> Not to belabour the obvious - they didn't. Linus ordered them to merge
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:53:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> These days, there's a few dependencies you need to know about (I do agree
> that from a user perspective the thing might have been made a bit _too_
> modular)
Indeed, no argument here.
> That said, the _one_ thing I really w
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:56:10 +0100
Luca Barbieri wrote:
> It seems to me that Linus' technical argument is indeed being mostly ignored.
>
> While breaking the ABI is unfortunate, the real problem that Linus
> complained about is that you can't install several userspace versions
> side-by-side.
I
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, David Miller wrote:
>
> In fact, I argue that the moment nouveau went into Fedora and
> was turned on by default, the interfaces needed to be frozen.
Now, I agree that that would have been the optimal setup from a testing an
user standpoint, but I think it's a bit too stron
From: Daniel Stone
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200
> So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
> absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool,
> that worked really well for
From: Alan Cox
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:02:17 +
>> You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
>> and then throw your hands up in the air and say "I'm not willing to
>> support this in a reasonable way."
>
> Not to belabour the obvious - they didn't. Linus ordered t
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:48:35AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Stone
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:26:12AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >> In fact, I argue that the moment nouveau went into Fedora and
> >> was turned on by default, the interfaces needed to be frozen.
> >
> > That's
> You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
> and then throw your hands up in the air and say "I'm not willing to
> support this in a reasonable way."
Not to belabour the obvious - they didn't. Linus ordered them to merge it.
> We're better than that.
If you consider
It seems to me that Linus' technical argument is indeed being mostly ignored.
While breaking the ABI is unfortunate, the real problem that Linus
complained about is that you can't install several userspace versions
side-by-side.
This means that if you install your new kernel and userspace, reboot
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
>
> Whereas everytime I wanted to do that with Xorg it was such a pain that
> I want to keep away from that mess.
Actually, take it from me: Xorg is _pleasant_ to test these days.
Ok, so that's partly compared to the mess it _used_ to be, but it's rea
From: Daniel Stone
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:40:09 +0200
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:26:12AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> In fact, I argue that the moment nouveau went into Fedora and
>> was turned on by default, the interfaces needed to be frozen.
>
> That's a matter for the Fedora kernel team
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 06:24 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 05:59 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > in which you merely remove the nouveau userspace component, and in which
> > I can't tell if you built nouveau into the kernel or not, but I assume
> > you didn't based on your previous post. Th
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
> and making kernel development difficult for so many people matters to
> us.
Maybe the lesson
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:22:27AM -0500, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> > Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from
> > various
> > maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the
> > 'make menucon
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:26:12AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Stone
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
> >> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's break
> Personally I wouldn't have ever committed to that "user visible APIs
> can break cause it's in -stable." Because that's complete garbage
Staging has to have the no API rules. Read some of the stuff in there to
understand why or apply about 30 seconds of thought to what it would mean
to you.
Th
From: Daniel Stone
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:17:54 +0200
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
>> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
>> and making kernel development
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from various
> maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the
> 'make menuconfig' way of selecting what to compile to have the guarantee that
> the who
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 06:37 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alan Cox
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:38:34 +
>
> >> The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a "flag day"
> >> cleanup/feature/etc is:
> >
> > Ingo go read the staging Kconfig. It's crystal clear, and lots of vendor
>
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, "C. Bergström" wrote:
>
> staging != stable
This really is being repeated, over and over. But it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because it's just a bad _excuse_.
That driver is used in production environments. That's _reality_. The
whole "staging" thing is nothing more than
From: Alan Cox
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:09:34 +
> I think you miss a bigger picture ?
>
> If Fedora hadn't merged it then it wouldn't have gotten to the state of
> usability it had. If Fedora hadn't merged it then several hundred
> thousand users wouldn't have had useful working machines.
I
> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
> and making kernel development difficult for so many people matters to
> us.
>
> It's about the tester base, and this breakage shrinks the tester base
> co
From: Alan Cox
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:38:34 +
>> The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a "flag day"
>> cleanup/feature/etc is:
>
> Ingo go read the staging Kconfig. It's crystal clear, and lots of vendor
> junk that is in there being cleaned up it would be *insane* to keep
> Why does the X community not understand simple library versioning?
Why does Linus Torvalds not understand the Kconfig of his own staging
directory ?
Alan
--
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software too
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:32:02 -0500
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 02:04 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > "Please note that these drivers are under heavy development, may or may
> > not work, and may contain userspace interfaces that most likely will be
> > changed in the near future."
>
> Ship
> So man up, guys. Face the problem, rather than say "well, it's staging",
> or "well, we can revert it". Neither of those really solve anything in the
> short run _or_ the long run.
Linus stop and think for a minute instead. Maybe a timeline would help
Nouveau development star
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:44:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Yeah. I've seen a few other bad arguments as well:
>
>'exploding test matrix'
>
> This is often the result of _another_ bad technical decision:
> over-modularization.
>
> Xorg, mesa/libdrm and the kernel DRM drivers pretty sh
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:00:30 +0100, "Carlos R. Mafra" said:
> Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from various
> maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the
> 'make menuconfig' way of selecting what to compile to have the guarantee that
> th
> The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a "flag day"
> cleanup/feature/etc is:
Ingo go read the staging Kconfig. It's crystal clear, and lots of vendor
junk that is in there being cleaned up it would be *insane* to keep their
old APIs
See there's a bigger offence than breaking an
On 03/04/2010 05:59 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:21 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>> # sed -i 's/\.*/& nouveau.modeset=0/g' /etc/grub.conf
>>
>> Never tried this part.
>
> The bug I'm assuming you're referring to is
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519298
>
> i
On Fri 5.Mar'10 at 8:44:07 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Yeah. I've seen a few other bad arguments as well:
>
>'exploding test matrix'
>
> This is often the result of _another_ bad technical decision:
> over-modularization.
>
> Xorg, mesa/libdrm and the kernel DRM drivers pretty share th
1 - 100 of 399 matches
Mail list logo
