Hi Hanjun,
On 2/26/21 10:03 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2021/2/19 22:45, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>> Would you be interested in working with the Linux Foundation KernelCI project
>> on submitting your build and test results to the common database - KCIDB?
>
> Yes, we are willing to sent the test
Hi Nick,
Sorry for taking so long to reply you, we had discussions on how to
corporate with KCIDB, please see my comments inline.
On 2021/2/19 22:45, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
Hi Hanjun,
On 2/19/21 10:54 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> In specific, we will start from the testing work, using HULK
On 2021/2/20 17:53, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 03:02:54PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2021/2/19 17:08, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 04:54:24PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
Hi Greg,
On 2021/1/26 15:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
[...]
I want to see
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 08:00:52AM -0600, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 26.01.2021 [08:29:25 +0100], Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > The 5.10 LTS kernel being officially LTS supported for 2
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:44:23AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 2/19/2021 7:53 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 07:05:41AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/19/2021 12:25 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:16:50PM
Hi Greg,
On 26.01.2021 [08:29:25 +0100], Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > The 5.10 LTS kernel being officially LTS supported for 2 years
> > presents a problem: why would anyone select a 5.10 kernel with 2
> > year LTS
On Saturday, February 20, 2021 6:05 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 01:29:21PM +, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> > I have been able to narrow the beginning of the problem to these kernels:
> > 4.14.188 ... 4.14.202
> > Same "fix" that went info 4.14.y is also bugging 4.19.y
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 05:05:14PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 01:29:21PM +, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> > On Friday, February 19, 2021 5:23 PM, Jari Ruusu
> > wrote:
> > > My contribution here is trying to point you guys to right direction.
> >
> > I have been able
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 01:29:21PM +, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2021 5:23 PM, Jari Ruusu
> wrote:
> > My contribution here is trying to point you guys to right direction.
>
> I have been able to narrow the beginning of the problem to these kernels:
> 4.14.188 ... 4.14.202
On Friday, February 19, 2021 5:23 PM, Jari Ruusu
wrote:
> My contribution here is trying to point you guys to right direction.
I have been able to narrow the beginning of the problem to these kernels:
4.14.188 ... 4.14.202
Same "fix" that went info 4.14.y is also bugging 4.19.y kernels.
--
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 03:02:54PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2021/2/19 17:08, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 04:54:24PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > On 2021/1/26 15:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > I want to see companies
On 2021/2/19 17:08, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 04:54:24PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
Hi Greg,
On 2021/1/26 15:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
[...]
I want to see companies _using_ the kernel, and most importantly,
_updating_ their devices with it, to know if it is worth to
On 2/19/2021 7:53 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 07:05:41AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/19/2021 12:25 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:16:50PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
On 2021-02-18 10:36 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:16:12PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> Great! Can you run 'git bisect' on the 4.14.y stable tree to find the
> offending change?
To be fair, especially with WiFi bugs, you may need to run for hours
or days before you are absolutely sure that a particular
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 07:05:41AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 2/19/2021 12:25 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:16:50PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> >> On 2021-02-18 10:36 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:20:50PM +0100,
On Friday, February 19, 2021 1:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> Great! Can you run 'git bisect' on the 4.14.y stable tree to find the
> offending change?
As I tried to explain earlier, that laptop's connection to world is no
longer iwlwifi based but ethernet connection to fibre. I can't do
On 2/19/2021 12:25 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:16:50PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>> On 2021-02-18 10:36 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:20:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:53:56PM +0100, Greg
Hi Hanjun,
On 2/19/21 10:54 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> In specific, we will start from the testing work, using HULK robot
> (reports lots of bugs to mainline kernel) testing framework to test
> compile, reboot, functional testing, and will extend to basic
> performance regression testing in the
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:57:30AM +, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2021 12:37 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> > Did you report that breakage to us and the developers of the driver?
> > Sounds like a regression that people would love to hear about and get
> > fixed.
>
> At
On Friday, February 19, 2021 12:37 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> Did you report that breakage to us and the developers of the driver?
> Sounds like a regression that people would love to hear about and get
> fixed.
At that time I didn't know where the problem was, so I did not report it.
I
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:31:49AM +, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2021 10:22 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> > That's not the goal of stable kernel releases/trees. If the driver
> > version that is in 4.19.y does not work for you on release 4.19.0, odds
> > of that
On Friday, February 19, 2021 10:22 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> That's not the goal of stable kernel releases/trees. If the driver
> version that is in 4.19.y does not work for you on release 4.19.0, odds
> of that "changing" in later stable releases is slim to none.
But in-tree iwlwifi
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 04:54:24PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 2021/1/26 15:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > I want to see companies _using_ the kernel, and most importantly,
> > _updating_ their devices with it, to know if it is worth to keep around
> > for longer
Hi Greg,
On 2021/1/26 15:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
[...]
I want to see companies _using_ the kernel, and most importantly,
_updating_ their devices with it, to know if it is worth to keep around
for longer than 2 years. I also, hopefully, want to see how those
companies will help me out
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:00:27AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > For me
> > > > > only way to get properly working WiFi on my laptop computer is to
> > > > > compile that Intel out-of-tree version. Sad, but true.
> > > >
> > > > Why use 4.19.y on a laptop in the firstplace? That
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:16:50PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> On 2021-02-18 10:36 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:20:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:53:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:21:13AM
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 07:10:35AM +, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> On Thursday, February 18, 2021 7:44 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> > > It was the other way around. Fine working in-tree driver got
> > > broken by backported "fixes". I did mention bit-rot.
> >
> > It did? Please let us stable
Hi!
> > > > For me
> > > > only way to get properly working WiFi on my laptop computer is to
> > > > compile that Intel out-of-tree version. Sad, but true.
> > >
> > > Why use 4.19.y on a laptop in the firstplace? That feels very wrong and
> > > is not the recommended thing to use the LTS
On Thursday, February 18, 2021 7:44 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> > It was the other way around. Fine working in-tree driver got
> > broken by backported "fixes". I did mention bit-rot.
>
> It did? Please let us stable maintainers know about, we will always
> gladly revert problems patches.
On Thursday 18 February 2021 21:55:34 Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > For me
> > > only way to get properly working WiFi on my laptop computer is to
> > > compile that Intel out-of-tree version. Sad, but true.
> >
> > Why use 4.19.y on a laptop in the firstplace? That feels very wrong and
> >
Hi Willy,
On 2021-02-18 1:00 p.m., Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:16:50PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>> On 2021-02-18 10:36 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:20:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:53:56PM +0100, Greg
On 2021-02-18 1:39 p.m., Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:16:50PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>> On 2021-02-18 10:36 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:20:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:53:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman
On 2/18/2021 1:39 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:16:50PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>> On 2021-02-18 10:36 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:20:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:53:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:16:50PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
On 2021-02-18 10:36 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:20:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:53:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:21:13AM -0800,
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:16:50PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> On 2021-02-18 10:36 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:20:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:53:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:21:13AM
Hi!
> > For me
> > only way to get properly working WiFi on my laptop computer is to
> > compile that Intel out-of-tree version. Sad, but true.
>
> Why use 4.19.y on a laptop in the firstplace? That feels very wrong and
> is not the recommended thing to use the LTS kernels for.
Well, that's
On 2021-02-18 10:36 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:20:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:53:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:21:13AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
As a company, we are most likely
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:20:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:53:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:21:13AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > As a company, we are most likely shooting ourselves in the foot by not
> > > having a
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:53:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:21:13AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > As a company, we are most likely shooting ourselves in the foot by not
> > having a point of coordination with the Linux Foundation and key people
> > like
Hi Florian!
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:42:00AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > Other difficulty with the LTS version is the frequency it is updated. We
> > would not
> > pickup the changes that frequently to test. A quarterly, bi-annually, or
> > when a critical fix
> > is identified would
On 2/18/2021 9:53 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:21:13AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> As a company, we are most likely shooting ourselves in the foot by not
>> having a point of coordination with the Linux Foundation and key people
>> like you, Greg and other
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:21:13AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> As a company, we are most likely shooting ourselves in the foot by not
> having a point of coordination with the Linux Foundation and key people
> like you, Greg and other participants in the stable kernel.
What does the LF have
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 05:19:54PM +, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> On Thursday, February 18, 2021 4:33 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Usually you pick an LTS kernel for a specific hardware. If it
> > works that's great. But you cannot expect hardware to suddenly start to
> > work in the middle of a
On 2/17/2021 11:48 AM, Scott Branden wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 2021-02-17 1:40 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 07:51:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
Hi Greg,
On 2021-01-25
On 2/18/2021 8:51 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:48:21AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>> On 2021-02-17 1:40 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> Following up on this as I did not hear back from you. Are you and/or
>>> your company willing to help out with the testing of 5.10
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 05:19:54PM +, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> In-tree iwlwifi worked half-ok on early 4.9.y stable. If
> connection somehow de-autheticated (out of radio range or
> whatever) it crashed the kernel spectacularly. Eventually that was
> fixed and in-tree iwlwifi worked fine on 4.9.y
On Thursday, February 18, 2021 4:33 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Usually you pick an LTS kernel for a specific hardware. If it
> works that's great. But you cannot expect hardware to suddenly start to
> work in the middle of a stable kernel. Sometimes it happens (PCI IDs) but
> that's basically all
On 2/18/2021 3:31 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 08:43:48AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:48:21AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>>> Other difficulty with the LTS version is the frequency it is updated.
>
> What a stange statement! So basically
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:48:21AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
On 2021-02-17 1:40 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Following up on this as I did not hear back from you. Are you and/or
your company willing to help out with the testing of 5.10 to ensure that
it is a LTS kernel? So far I have not
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 04:15:11PM +0200, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > The only set of fixes that can be trusted are the "official" stable
> > kernels, because they are the only ones that are approved by the patches
> > authors themselves. Adding more stuff on top of stable kernels
Willy Tarreau wrote:
> The only set of fixes that can be trusted are the "official" stable
> kernels, because they are the only ones that are approved by the patches
> authors themselves. Adding more stuff on top of stable kernels is fine
> (and done at your own risk), but randomly dropping stuff
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 04:15:11PM +0200, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > The only set of fixes that can be trusted are the "official" stable
> > kernels, because they are the only ones that are approved by the patches
> > authors themselves. Adding more stuff on top of stable kernels
Hi!
> Why would you backport new features to an old kernel? That's not what
> they are there for.
For CIP project, this is one of advantages for "supported" boards, as
we'll backport patches improving their support as long as those
patches are mainline.
> > If the CIP project has committed to
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 08:43:48AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:48:21AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> > Other difficulty with the LTS version is the frequency it is updated.
What a stange statement! So basically if fixes come in quickly so that
customers are not
Hi!
(Second attempt to reply, as first one is not in the archives?!)
> > So far the jury is still out for 5.10, are you willing to help with
> > this? If not, why are you willing to hope that others are going to do
> > your work for you? I am talking to some companies, but am not willing
> >
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:48:21AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 2021-02-17 1:40 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 07:51:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> >>> Hi Greg,
> >>>
> >>>
>
Hi Greg,
On 2021-02-17 1:40 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 07:51:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021-01-25 11:29 p.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 07:51:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> >
> > On 2021-01-25 11:29 p.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> > >> Hi All,
>
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 07:51:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > Ok, seriously, this happens every year, and every year we go through the
> > > same thing, it's not like this is somehow new, right?
> > No, but why do we need to keep playing the same game every year now.
>
>
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
>
> On 2021-01-25 11:29 p.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The 5.10 LTS kernel being officially LTS supported for 2 years presents a
Hi Greg,
On 2021-01-25 11:29 p.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The 5.10 LTS kernel being officially LTS supported for 2 years presents a
>> problem:
>> why would anyone select a 5.10 kernel with 2 year LTS when 5.4
On 1/25/2021 11:29 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The 5.10 LTS kernel being officially LTS supported for 2 years presents a
>> problem:
>> why would anyone select a 5.10 kernel with 2 year LTS when 5.4 kernel has
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The 5.10 LTS kernel being officially LTS supported for 2 years presents a
> problem:
> why would anyone select a 5.10 kernel with 2 year LTS when 5.4 kernel has a 6
> year LTS.
Because they want to use all of the
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> The 5.10 LTS kernel being officially LTS supported for 2 years presents a
> problem:
> why would anyone select a 5.10 kernel with 2 year LTS when 5.4 kernel has a 6
> year LTS.
>
> Yet, various unofficial reports indicate it will
Hi All,
The 5.10 LTS kernel being officially LTS supported for 2 years presents a
problem:
why would anyone select a 5.10 kernel with 2 year LTS when 5.4 kernel has a 6
year LTS.
Yet, various unofficial reports indicate it will be supported for 6 years. And
AOSP has already declared the use
65 matches
Mail list logo
