Bug#500358: Fix found
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:28:44PM -0600, Jordan Bettis wrote: Hi. I just wanted to weigh in and say that I've tried Max's fix on my Ultra 5 and I can confirm that it works with the X server from lenny. Before trying Max's kernel patch I also verified that X.org is *broken* and unusable using the default kernel. This is true of the X.org server included in Lenny as well as the 1.5.3 server in experimental. Looking at the patch it's clear that the original intention of the kernel change was to clean out some seemingly crufty and dodgy old code, but seeing that 1) the change is localized to SPARC machines; 2) it renders X.org unusable with Ultra 5s, and highly probably Ultra 10s as they're virtually the same, as well as an unknown set of other machines; 3) Ultra 5s and Ultra 10s seem to remain the most popular SPARC machines for the desktop (and therefore the set of SPARC machines likely to have X.org installed) it doesn't seem reasonable to release stable Debian system with this problem in it on the academic grounds that it's X.org's fault. This is a serious problem with Debian on SPARC. Assuming that Debian really cares about SPARC, (particularly on the desktop) and I think the project should do what needs to be done to make sure that this bug doesn't make it into the released version of Lenny. Someone mentioned not wanting to build their own kernel so I uploaded the one I built to my web server. I tried to build it from the source of linux-image-2.6.26, so that it would be identical to the Debian kernel -- with the patch applied -- but I ran into problems running dpkg-buildpackage. So instead I went with the usual linux-source/make-kpkg route. I enabled just about everything though so it should be pretty similar to a Debian kernel with respect to features. It is also built using initrd. http://hafd.org/~jordanb/linux-image-2.6.26murat-custom_murat001_sparc.deb Sorry about the name. I got a bit carried away. Please retest the official 2.6.26-11 images to verify if they work you: linux-2.6 (2.6.26-11) unstable; urgency=low . [ Bastian Blank ] * [sparc] Reintroduce dummy PCI host controller to workaround broken X.org. * [sparc] Fix size checks in PCI maps. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#500358: Fix found
reassign 500358 xserver-xorg-core thanks On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 22:10:03 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: 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. So as it is now worked around, lets get the bug to the right package. Bastian -- Captain's Log, star date 21:34.5... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#500358: Fix found
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reassign 500358 xserver-xorg-core Bug#500358: mach64 stopped working on the Sun Ultra 5 graphics card after upgrade Bug#488669: kernel changes break X on sparc64/pci Bug reassigned from package `linux-2.6' to `xserver-xorg-core'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#500358: Fix found
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:17:16PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Please retest the official 2.6.26-11 images to verify if they work you: Irrelevant question as this was no bug fix but a workaround. Bastian -- Emotions are alien to me. I'm a scientist. -- Spock, This Side of Paradise, stardate 3417.3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#500358: Fix found
Hi. I just wanted to weigh in and say that I've tried Max's fix on my Ultra 5 and I can confirm that it works with the X server from lenny. Before trying Max's kernel patch I also verified that X.org is *broken* and unusable using the default kernel. This is true of the X.org server included in Lenny as well as the 1.5.3 server in experimental. Looking at the patch it's clear that the original intention of the kernel change was to clean out some seemingly crufty and dodgy old code, but seeing that 1) the change is localized to SPARC machines; 2) it renders X.org unusable with Ultra 5s, and highly probably Ultra 10s as they're virtually the same, as well as an unknown set of other machines; 3) Ultra 5s and Ultra 10s seem to remain the most popular SPARC machines for the desktop (and therefore the set of SPARC machines likely to have X.org installed) it doesn't seem reasonable to release stable Debian system with this problem in it on the academic grounds that it's X.org's fault. This is a serious problem with Debian on SPARC. Assuming that Debian really cares about SPARC, (particularly on the desktop) and I think the project should do what needs to be done to make sure that this bug doesn't make it into the released version of Lenny. Someone mentioned not wanting to build their own kernel so I uploaded the one I built to my web server. I tried to build it from the source of linux-image-2.6.26, so that it would be identical to the Debian kernel -- with the patch applied -- but I ran into problems running dpkg-buildpackage. So instead I went with the usual linux-source/make-kpkg route. I enabled just about everything though so it should be pretty similar to a Debian kernel with respect to features. It is also built using initrd. http://hafd.org/~jordanb/linux-image-2.6.26murat-custom_murat001_sparc.deb Sorry about the name. I got a bit carried away. Thanks, -- Jordan Bettis -- Chicago Il. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Bug#500358: Fix found
It is the decision of the maintainer if nothing else matches. Ok. Who is the maintainer? NMUing a properly maintained package without action from the CTTE is also a no-go. Sorry, I'm not a DD and I'm very bad in your politics and burocracy. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=5769907ade8dda7002b304c03ef9e4ee5c1e0821 This is a different patch then http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=102;filename=sparc_fix_for_debian.patch;att=1;bug=500358 Go on and read the discussion of this bug if you really interested why these patches differ. 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. -- Max -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#500358: Fix found
2008/11/9 Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED]: OK, since there was no opposition and there is still no explaination on why this bug was donwgraded in the first place I'm upgrading it back to the initial severity. There is only a small fraction of machines affected, so this is not RC. This is not a PC case where one can assemble some unique set of components which will not work together well. 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. And if SPARC is qualified for release then this is definitely RC. And do not hesitate to use common sense. Refusal of fixing the bug should be made only if you are afraid of breaking something else. This patch targets only SPARC. It has absolutely no influence on other archs, so it won't break anything else even in the worst case. I fail to find anything near this patch in upstream (Linus' tree), which would be the first target. So please provide commit IDs along with patches. If you want to force us to apply patches which does not follow our guidelines, you have to ask CTTE. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=5769907ade8dda7002b304c03ef9e4ee5c1e0821 -- Max -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#500358: Fix found
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 09:37:11PM +0300, Max Dmitrichenko wrote: 2008/11/9 Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED]: OK, since there was no opposition and there is still no explaination on why this bug was donwgraded in the first place I'm upgrading it back to the initial severity. There is only a small fraction of machines affected, so this is not RC. This is not a PC case where one can assemble some unique set of components which will not work together well. Hmm, my Sparc got PCI-X and PCIe. Okay, I never tried to put a random card in it, but why should it not work? 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. And if SPARC is qualified for release then this is definitely RC. It is the decision of the maintainer if nothing else matches. And do not hesitate to use common sense. Refusal of fixing the bug should be made only if you are afraid of breaking something else. This patch targets only SPARC. It has absolutely no influence on other archs, so it won't break anything else even in the worst case. NMUing a properly maintained package without action from the CTTE is also a no-go. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=5769907ade8dda7002b304c03ef9e4ee5c1e0821 This is a different patch then http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=102;filename=sparc_fix_for_debian.patch;att=1;bug=500358 Bastian -- History tends to exaggerate. -- Col. Green, The Savage Curtain, stardate 5906.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#500358: Fix found
severity 500358 grave Thanks On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 06:24:57PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: As this affects a major part of all SPARC machines, I really think this is release critical and the bug severity should be upgraded again. If you don't disagree strongly I will upgrade it in the next days. OK, since there was no opposition and there is still no explaination on why this bug was donwgraded in the first place I'm upgrading it back to the initial severity. What's the best way forward on this issue? I'm a bit hesitant on just preparing an NMU for the kernel, for obvious reasons. It would much prefer it, if a member of the kernel team would take care of appling the patch. Are the changes currently in SVN targeted at lenny or not? If it helps I could prepare an NMU patch complete with changelog entry and everything. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#500358: Fix found
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity 500358 important Bug#500358: mach64 stopped working on the Sun Ultra 5 graphics card after upgrade Bug#488669: kernel changes break X on sparc64/pci Severity set to `important' from `grave' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#500358: Fix found
severity 500358 important thanks On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 11:54:38PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 06:24:57PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: As this affects a major part of all SPARC machines, I really think this is release critical and the bug severity should be upgraded again. If you don't disagree strongly I will upgrade it in the next days. OK, since there was no opposition and there is still no explaination on why this bug was donwgraded in the first place I'm upgrading it back to the initial severity. There is only a small fraction of machines affected, so this is not RC. What's the best way forward on this issue? I'm a bit hesitant on just preparing an NMU for the kernel, for obvious reasons. It would much prefer it, if a member of the kernel team would take care of appling the patch. I fail to find anything near this patch in upstream (Linus' tree), which would be the first target. So please provide commit IDs along with patches. If you want to force us to apply patches which does not follow our guidelines, you have to ask CTTE. Bastian -- Beam me up, Scotty! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
