On 03/16/2015 04:45 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/17/15 06:25, Joe Zeff wrote:
My laptop reports several kerneloops every time it boots. AFAIK, there's
nothing installed that taints the kernel, but 99% of the time abrt tells me
that the kernel is tainted and that I can't report it.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/16/2015 04:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
That should get you more than one line. What's probably happening is
there's an early Not Tainted line which is the one to file as a bug.
I don't have that for you yet (It's the laptop
On 03/16/2015 04:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
That should get you more than one line. What's probably happening is
there's an early Not Tainted line which is the one to file as a bug.
I don't have that for you yet (It's the laptop giving me trouble, and I
normally collect my email on my
On 03/29/2015 07:19 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
So there is a previous warning (or the kernel is very confused). There
are a pile of bugs already reported on RHBR and kernel.org about this
particular trace you've provided so it seems to be a known problem,
likely a regression. But without a complete
On 03/17/2015 10:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Taint is always caused by out of tree kernel modules. If you haven't
installed anything that installs kernel modules, most typically that's
video drivers, then it could be an MCE in which case that's a legit
Fedora kernel bug to file, but probably
On 03/17/2015 11:09 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/18/15 12:42, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/17/2015 08:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
2. how to provide useful debugging info - if the user will not test a
non-tainted kernel I see no possible way for an automated system to
know where to file the bug
You
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:18 AM, jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/17/2015 10:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Taint is always caused by out of tree kernel modules. If you haven't
installed anything that installs kernel modules, most typically that's
video drivers, then it could be an MCE in
On 03/18/2015 05:34 PM, jd1008 wrote:
On 03/18/2015 06:26 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/18/2015 10:18 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Not in Joe Zeff's case!!!
To be more specific, there's nothing like that that I'm aware of. Yet.
Perhaps I misread your message???
I haven't had time to follow the
On 03/18/2015 10:18 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Not in Joe Zeff's case!!!
To be more specific, there's nothing like that that I'm aware of. Yet.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
On 03/18/2015 06:26 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/18/2015 10:18 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Not in Joe Zeff's case!!!
To be more specific, there's nothing like that that I'm aware of. Yet.
Perhaps I misread your message???
On 03/16/2015 04:25 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 02:29 PM, Matthew Miller
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 21:22 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
Sounds like a UI bug.
Agreed. And, it would appear, that becomes a don't really care about
fixing it issue, as sound still works, even if the controls are
backwards.
Are you talking about tainted kernels (3rd party, out of tree kernel
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/17/2015 08:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
2. how to provide useful debugging info - if the user will not test a
non-tainted kernel I see no possible way for an automated system to
know where to file the bug
You are assuming
On 03/17/2015 08:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
2. how to provide useful debugging info - if the user will not test a
non-tainted kernel I see no possible way for an automated system to
know where to file the bug
You are assuming that it's practical (or even possible) to run without a
tainted
On 03/18/15 12:42, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/17/2015 08:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
2. how to provide useful debugging info - if the user will not test a
non-tainted kernel I see no possible way for an automated system to
know where to file the bug
You are assuming that it's practical (or even
On 03/16/2015 01:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM, jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
I think this question needs to go to the Fedora
On 03/16/2015 02:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
mean that the out of tree module isn't instigating the problem though.
Agreed. That's why I suggested trying to duplicate the crash
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/16/2015 02:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
mean that the out of tree module isn't instigating the problem though.
On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Why bother with this infrastructure if no one is going to look at the
reports or do anything about them?
Why do you assume that nobody's going to pay attention to those bug reports?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/16/2015 02:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
mean that the out of tree
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Rick Stevens ri...@alldigital.com wrote:
On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
a. It actually has to communicate with a server, so whose hosting this
other bugzilla?
I think the point here is that a user could configure ADDITIONAL
bugzilla sites.
Do
On 03/17/2015 02:51 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Rick Stevens ri...@alldigital.com wrote:
On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
If the kernel aborts and abrt determines it's a tainted
kernel, then it could pop up this list of additional sites and let the
user
On Mar 17, 2015 3:30 PM, jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
Because the user is not provided with an easy
way to generate the crash report with a full stack dump
of all the CPUS, the full contents of RAM and the full
kernel binary - so that the dev (who would work on the report)
can do a
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 02:46:15PM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
Why bother with this infrastructure if no one is going to look at
the reports or do anything about them?
They are bugzilla servers, and follow the same protocol of bug
submission as the fedora and the redhat report submission protocol.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 03:29:55PM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
Also, how about abrt CREATE the full report, and let the user
save it in a file, and submit it to anyone s/he desires?
Is THAT too much to ask for???
Well, you can _ask_ for anything. It is definitely too much to expect
someone else to
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Tim ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 14:51 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
If you know the site already, why not just file the bug directly on
that bugzilla? Why does it need to be automated?
As a general response, I'd say that:
People
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 14:51 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
If you know the site already, why not just file the bug directly on
that bugzilla? Why does it need to be automated?
As a general response, I'd say that:
People are more likely to make a bug report if it's not a protracted
exercise for
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Why bother with this infrastructure if no one is going to look at the
reports or do anything about them?
Why do you assume that nobody's going to pay attention to those bug reports?
On 03/17/2015 02:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/16/2015 02:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
mean that the out of tree
On 03/16/2015 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:44:16AM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
Kernel modules can pretty much do whatever they like once
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:11 PM, jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/16/2015 01:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM, jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending
On 03/16/2015 05:45 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
Ed, even that is no help.
MY kernel is tainted by mods from rpmfusion. yet:
$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
0
So, what does that leave the user?
abrt says it is tainted, which is correct.
--
users mailing list
On 03/17/2015 02:41 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/16/2015 02:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Tim ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 21:22 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
Sounds like a UI bug.
Agreed. And, it would appear, that becomes a don't really care about
fixing it issue, as sound still works, even if the controls are
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
mean that the out of tree module isn't instigating the problem though.
Agreed. That's why I suggested trying to duplicate the crash with an
untainted kernel.
--
users mailing
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 09:58:54AM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
I've been thinking the same thing. If nothing else, whoever is
assigned to the bug should try to
On 03/16/2015 01:46 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
That's a lot of obligation to put onto someone you are not paying. The
kernel maintainers have a huge and constantly growing pile of work. I
don't think it's unreasonable to ask for bug submitters to recreate the
crash on a stock system.
What do
On 03/16/2015 04:45 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/17/15 06:25, Joe Zeff wrote:
My laptop reports several kerneloops every time it boots. AFAIK, there's
nothing installed that taints the kernel, but 99% of the time abrt tells me
that the kernel is tainted and that I can't report it.
Many of us need akmods for our hardware.
But when the kernel crashes or ooops'es,
we are unable to send the crash report.
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
At least provide a way for us to send
On 03/16/2015 09:44 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
I've been thinking the same thing. If nothing else, whoever is assigned
to the bug should try to recreate the crash on a
Recreating a rare crash even when you know the exact conditions that
caused the crash is very very difficult.I have been involved in
not so rare crashes (we had some machines of the exact same hw type
that all crashed randomly about 1x per week). And duplicating that
crash tied up a test
On 03/16/2015 10:58 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 09:44 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
I've been thinking the same thing. If nothing else, whoever is
assigned to the
On 03/16/2015 11:29 AM, Roger Heflin wrote:
Recreating a rare crash even when you know the exact conditions that
caused the crash is very very difficult.I have been involved in
not so rare crashes (we had some machines of the exact same hw type
that all crashed randomly about 1x per week).
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
out of tree kernel affects kernel behavior.
tree kernel ^module
--
Chris Murphy
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/16/2015 02:29 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Reboot into a stock kernel without the modules? Ask other people for
help in replicating? Contact the vendor of the binary module and ask
for their help?
My laptop reports several
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:44:16AM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
Kernel modules can pretty much do whatever they like once they're
loaded; how do you demonstrate that the
On 03/17/15 06:25, Joe Zeff wrote:
My laptop reports several kerneloops every time it boots. AFAIK, there's
nothing installed that taints the kernel, but 99% of the time abrt tells me
that the kernel is tainted and that I can't report it. Suggestions? (If you
need, I can get you a copy of
On 03/17/15 07:43, Chris Murphy wrote:
Crude but this should work
# journalctl -b -l -o short-monotonic | grep -i tainted
That won't work since the string in the journal is taints kernel
--
If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.
--
users mailing list
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us wrote:
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
mean that the out of tree module isn't instigating the problem though.
Agreed. That's why I suggested trying to
On 03/16/2015 02:29 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Reboot into a stock kernel without the modules? Ask other people for
help in replicating? Contact the vendor of the binary module and ask
for their help?
My laptop reports several kerneloops every time it boots. AFAIK,
there's nothing installed
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 01:59:17PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
That's a lot of obligation to put onto someone you are not paying. The
kernel maintainers have a huge and constantly growing pile of work. I
don't think it's unreasonable to ask for bug submitters to recreate the
crash on a stock
If it is a obvious bug, yes those are easy to find, the obvious bugs
also have lots of crashes tainted or untainted. The ones that always
get everyone in trouble are the ones were something modifies something
unrelated to it and causes someone else's code to crash in a bizarre
way.
On Mon, Mar
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM, jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
I think this question needs to go to the Fedora devel@ list, or maybe
also kernel@ as a
52 matches
Mail list logo
