On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 9:19 AM Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> [CCing Justin]
>
> On 04.06.24 18:12, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
>
> > Instruction [1] about building upstream kernel should be updated,
>
> I'd tend to disagree. I think the root of the problem should be fixed,
> which you...
>
> > because
On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 3:08 AM Mikhail Gavrilov
wrote:
>
> Something broke in the build environment
> I can't build the kernel package in the mock environment for two days.
> I attached an archived build log here.
I saw no build log attached. What kernel version were you trying to
build, and
Please rebase any pending MRs and repush.
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 6.10 releases, and again with 6.11... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 3:20 PM Dan Horák wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 14:50:57 -0600
> Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately I will be out on medical leave for the next 4-8 weeks.
> > Augusto Caringi (acaringi) has been doing a great job wit
Unfortunately I will be out on medical leave for the next 4-8 weeks.
Augusto Caringi (acaringi) has been doing a great job with the fedora
stable kernel releases recently and will be the point of contact for
fedora kernel issues in my absence. Other good points of contact
include Peter Robinson
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 7:10 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 07:59 -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> > On 3/4/24 11:49, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We can't build webkitgtk on i686 lately.
> > >
> > > webkitgtk is in critical path and break rawhide composes, if fail
>
Please rebase any pending MRs and repush.
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 6.8 releases, and again with 6.9... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree,
Please rebase any pending MRs and repush.
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 6.7 releases, and again with 6.8... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree,
Please rebase any pending MRs and repush.
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 6.6 releases, and again with 6.7... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree,
Please rebase any pending MRs and repush.
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 6.5 releases, and again with 6.6... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree,
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 1:10 PM stan via kernel
wrote:
>
> It has been ages since I wanted to patch the kernel when I built a
> custom kernel. I tried putting the patch in the spec file where the
> other patches were, but it doesn't apply. There is no error, or even
> indication that it saw the
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 9:37 AM Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there a reason why CONFIG_NFT_CONNLIMIT is not set in default Fedora
> kernels?
> I think there was a problem with it in early kernel 4.19, but that was quite
> a while ago, and as it stands it seems that documented
Please rebase any pending MRs and repush.
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 6.4 releases, and again with 6.3... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree,
t Monday, that way it
will automatically follow into stable Fedora as they get the 6.3
rebase.
Justin
> John Kacur
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 12:12 AM Zamir SUN wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/5/23 23:49, Justin Forbes wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 5:05 AM Zam
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 5:05 AM Zamir SUN wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on libtraceevent and libtracefs update. There will be soname
> bump happening to them. Namely,
>
> libtraceevent.so 1.6.3 -> 1.7.2
> libtracefs.so 1.5.0 -> 1.6.4
>
> IIRC only kernel-tools (for perf and rtla) and trace-cmd
On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 12:48 PM stan via kernel
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I just built a kernel from the 6.2.2 fc37 src.rpm. It built fine, but
> at the end there was a missing file warning for cpufreq.h. I build the
> header files when building the kernel, so I would think that would be
> included in
Please rebase any pending MRs and repush.
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 6.3 releases, and again with 6.4... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree,
On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 1:37 AM Ondrej Mosnáček wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 9:10 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:28 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 12:15 PM Paul Moore wrote:
>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:28 AM Paul Moore wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 12:15 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> >
> > Hi Fedora Kernel People,
> >
> > The SELinux folks recently stumbled across some test failures due to a
> > change in the Rawhide kernel config that happened this week while we
> >
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 6:52 AM Dan Horák wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 14:17:36 -0600
> Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> > As the MR is now merged, it is a good time to make sure that everyone
> > is aware. As of 6.2-rc5, Rawhide is no longer forcing a debug build
> >
As the MR is now merged, it is a good time to make sure that everyone
is aware. As of 6.2-rc5, Rawhide is no longer forcing a debug build
with any kernels. All rawhide kernels are now built just like stable
Fedora kernels, with both non-debug and debug variations. This
change was necessary
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 4:39 PM Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> I'm not too great at figuring how you tell which is which from the build
> process, but there was a comment in a kernel build today that suggests
> that things have changed so that now rawhide kernels are nodebug by default.
> Is that
For a *very* long time, Rawhide has built rcX kernels as "release"
kernels and daily git snapshots as debug kernels only. This has
brought attention to some issues that might otherwise be missed.
Specifically around things like lockdep. Unfortunately, even without
changing our selected debug
Please rebase any pending MRs and repush.
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 6.2 releases, and again with 6.3... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree,
On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 9:54 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 11/25/22 11:40, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Hi! The following is all nitpicking. I hope it won't cause a
> > bikeshedding discussion, I'm not going to fight for any of this, I just
> > want to get it of my chest.
>
> Sorry, I do
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 6:08 PM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
>
> > While this does sound useful, it means we must create the commits,
> > push to create an MR, then immediately go back and edit the commits
> > because we have an MR number now. This link would be short lived as
> > it would go away
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 9:43 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
> Hey ptalbert and jforbes,
>
> I'm writing a script that will automate some of the CS9/RHEL CONFIG reviews.
>
> One thing I'm doing in the script is comparing the CS9/RHEL CONFIG value
> to the ARK value. If they match then the scripts
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 6:11 AM Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> Are you guys thinking of enabling MGLRU soon?
Yes, config options for Fedora typically get set somewhere between rc3
and rc7, with bigger changes earlier in the cycle and more of the
small drivers set later. I do intend to flip MGLRU on
Please rebase any pending MRs and repush.
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 6.1 releases, and again with 6.2... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 4:48 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > Should we have a Fedora feature page for unified kernel support?
> >
> > I'm not sure we especially want to publicise unified kernel images as
> > a standalone thing to users, as it is more of just a building block.
> >
> > If
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 9:58 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:37:03AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> > Hey Gerd,
> >
> > Thanks for this changeset.
> >
> > On 8/31/22 08:46, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > > Here is a little patch series to kick off a
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 9:04 AM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 5:44 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 11:35 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 8/2/22 22:15, Justin Forbes wrote:
&
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 5:44 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 11:35 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/2/22 22:15, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > > The initial fedora-5.19 branch has been created in kernel-ark. As I
> > >
The initial fedora-5.19 branch has been created in kernel-ark. As I
mentioned earlier, F37 will branch a 6.0 merge window kernel, but that
will be replaced with 5.19 as soon as possible. We will also do
stabilization for the 5.19 branch and hope to rebase Fedora 35 and 36
to 5.19 in a timely
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 6.0 releases, and again with 6.1... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree, because any outstanding
MR is invalidated
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 9:53 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
> $subject essentially. Does it actually serve any purpose. I know its
> been there a long time but I'm not sure if it serves any actual purpose
> anymore other than creating noise in the output.
>
> The line itself is output from
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 6:53 PM Mikhail Gavrilov
wrote:
>
> Unable build kernel locally because command fedpkg mockbuild failed with
> error "Empty %files file
> /builddir/build/BUILD/kernel-5.19-rc8-17-g39c3c396f813/debugfiles.list"
>
> Full build log: https://pastebin.com/48ZYg3XQ
>
> I also
I am not building 5,18.14 for Fedora, This is the upstream retbleed
fix for stable. We have been carrying most of those patches since
5.18.11, and the last of them were picked up with the 5.18.13 build.
The only thing in the upstream 5.18.14 build that is not in our
5.18.13 build is the version
Fedora 37 does not branch from Rawhide until August 9th, and the 5.20
merge window will open up on August 1, that puts us in a bit of an odd
situation. Fedora 37 will release on a 5.19 kernel because 5.20 is not
expected to release before the final freeze begins. I don't think it
would be wise
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 3:43 PM stan via kernel
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:57:08 -0700
> stan via kernel wrote:
>
> > Found the problem. There is a mismatch in the file name.
> > The kernel should be looking for
> > /usr/lib/systemd/libsystemd-core-251.3-1.fc37.so
> > not
> >
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 4:17 PM stan via kernel
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 11:40:14 -0700
> stan wrote:
>
> > I'll be building the rc6 kernel with the new option enabled to see if
> > that fixes things, but the kernel should still run even if the
> > automatic mitigation is turned off.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 8:47 AM Dennis Pries wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> currently the intel IPU6 based cameras are unsupported. This cameras are used
> in the tiger lake and alder lake platforms.
>
> Ubuntu made changes to support them:
>
The fedora-5.18 branch has not been created in the kernel-ark
repository. The kernel test week for 5.18 will be June 5th - June
11th, and the rebase for Fedora 35 and 36 will be shortly after that,
pending the results of test week. As Fedora 34 will already be EOL,
it will not get a 5.18 rebase.
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 5.19 releases, and again with 5.20... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree, because any outstanding
MR is
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:02 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 11:50 -0500, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 8:58 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > to test Virtualbox host kmods on new kernel (x86
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 8:58 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> to test Virtualbox host kmods on new kernel (x86_64 only), I install
> fedora-rawhide-kernel-nodebug [1]
>
> but last two update I see with ack SLS [2] but SLS is strict arm thing
> , this is a bug ? or I'm missing something ?
SLS
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 7:48 AM Bruno Goncalves (via Email Bridge)
wrote:
>
> From: Bruno Goncalves on gitlab.com
> https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1748#note_916697510
>
> @npache I used to bot to test this MR, but it failed to build for x86_64:
>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 12:29 PM stan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 15:23:47 -0500
> Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> > And now you see why kernel-headers is a separate package for Fedora,
> > you can't build the tools without installed kernel headers from the
> > same ke
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 12:19 PM stan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 10:53:54 -0500
> Justin Forbes wrote:
> > Coming soon to the kernel-ark repo, but the fix is easy in the spec:
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
> > index fb67ab956..515942496 10075
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 8:58 AM stan via kernel
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 07:23:39 -0500
> Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> > I am guessing this is because you turned on a build of kernel-tools
> > with it? libnl3 is only needed for kernel tools (the intel_sdsi build
>
On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 3:35 PM stan via kernel
wrote:
>
> Information.
>
> I'm building a custom kernel from the src.rpm tuned to my system. The
> last 5.17 kernel built just fine. However, this 5.18 kernel fails with
> the following error.
>
> + popd
> + pushd tools/arch/x86/intel_sdsi
> +
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 1:24 PM Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> Hi Don!
>
> On 08.02.22 20:24, Donald Zickus wrote:
> >
> > It has been awhile since we changed how this mailing list is used. As
> > folks have noticed, we have increased traffic significantly over the
> > past couple of years to
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:30 AM Yu Zhao wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:09 AM Huang, Ying wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Yu,
> >
> > Yu Zhao writes:
> > > diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
> > > index 3326ee3903f3..747ab1690bcf 100644
> > > --- a/mm/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/mm/Kconfig
> > > @@ -892,6
As we have done since 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 5.18 releases, and again with 5.19... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree, because any outstanding
MR is
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 9:47 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
> While working on the Makefiles I've noticed that the tarball names are
> different for Fedora vs CentOS/RHEL.
>
> Fedora uses an upstream based tarball version whereas CENTOS/RHEL use a
> tarball version that is based off the RPM NVR.
>
>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:11 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
> On 3/2/22 07:03, Dan Horák wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > would it be possible for the gitlab automation to generate diffs for the
> > "full" config files (kernel-$arch-*.config) when a MR is proposing
> > config changes (updates in
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 5:15 AM Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> On 12.02.22 06:21, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:25 AM Justin Forbes wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:07 AM Thorsten Leemhuis
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 08.02.22 20:24, Dona
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:07 AM Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> [sending this a second time with a different "From" address to get it on
> the list; sorry!]
>
> Lo!
>
> On 08.02.22 20:24, Donald Zickus wrote:
> >
> > It has been awhile since we changed how this mailing list is used. As
> > folks
On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 10:18 PM stan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:25:28 -0600
> Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> > Always best to check kernel-ark's "include in releases" tag to find
> > out if anything is required for it to build that haven't been merged
>
On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 12:56 PM stan via kernel
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm on rawhide with latest updates, except for some that have package
> version conflicts. But, the latest gcc and glibc packages.
>
> First, when I was configuring, (make menuconfig), even though it
> said that sysfb and
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 3:38 AM Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> Lo!
>
> On 20.01.22 09:38, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote:
> >
> > I would like to invite all of you to participate in the Kernel 5.16
> > Test week is happening from 2022-01-23 to 2022-01-29. It's
> > fairly simple, head over to the wiki [0]
As we did with 5.15, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 5.17 releases, and again with 5.18... It is
difficult to manage a regularly rebased tree, because any outstanding
MR is invalidated and
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:51 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> As you may have already seen, dracut needs some changes for 5.17:
> https://hansdegoede.livejournal.com/25948.html
>
> The necessary changes have landed in dracut's upstream git; and
> I've just started a build of dracut for
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 12:18 PM Mikhail Gavrilov
wrote:
>
> Hi!
> Usually for testing upstream patches I could easily include patch to spec
> file.
>
> For example:
> %if !%{nopatches}
>
> Patch1: patch-%{patchversion}-redhat.patch
> + Patch2: nct6775.diff
> %endif
>
> %if !%{nopatches}
>
>
If you have a pending merge request, you will need to rebase your
source tree and force push so that things will cleanly merge.
As we did with 5.14, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 5.16
If you have a pending merge request, you will need to rebase your
source tree and force push so that things will cleanly merge.
As we did with 5.13, we have done this again for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 5.15
port, which is not
possible to offer.
Justin
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 00:27, Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 6:06 AM Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:
> > >
> > > Just my 0.2$ - I run rawhide on most of my systems. The last couple of
> > weeks the
ly argued that we should be using appstreams for the kernel, and
> this, to me seems as good a reason as any to potentially investigate that
> approach.
>
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 21:08, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7/29/21 2:44 PM, Justin Fo
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 6:48 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Every now and then I sync the .config for the kernels which I build locally
> with the Fedora kernel's .config .
>
> After downloading
> kernel-core-5.14.0-0.rc3.20210728git7d549995d4e0.31.fc35.x86_64.rpm
> and extracting the
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:00 AM PGNet Dev wrote:
>
> Found 'vanilla kernels' for Fedora,
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kernel_Vanilla_Repositories
>
> https://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/thl/kernel-vanilla-stable/fedora-34/x86_64/
>
> Installed from repo
>
>
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:40 PM stan via kernel
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 10:04:07 -0700
> stan via kernel wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 10:21:01 -0500
> > Justin Forbes wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > bpftool is a builreq, the failure there has to d
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:41 AM stan via kernel
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm building the 5.14 kernel from
> kernel-5.14.0-0.rc0.20210706git79160a603bdb.11.fc35.src.rpm
> I've run into two issues.
>
> The first is to do with bpftool. I see in the comments that it is
> supposed to be disabled in Fedora.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:35 AM Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> Lo!
>
> On 28.06.21 22:10, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > If you have a pending merge request, you will need to rebase your
> > source tree and force push so that things will cleanly merge.
> >
> > While
If you have a pending merge request, you will need to rebase your
source tree and force push so that things will cleanly merge.
While this is the first time we have done this for os-build, we expect
to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
will do it again when 5.14
With 5.13 having been officially released, we will work towards the
typical path of stabilizing 5.13 for rebases. This means a test week
in about 2 weeks, and Fedora 33 and 34 will rebase to a 5.13 kernel
shortly after the test week, depending on the feedback we get.I
have created a branch in
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1169#note_598017347
Acked-by: Justin Forbes
(via approve button)
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1167#note_596781310
Acked-by: Justin Forbes
(via approve button)
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1167#note_596780470
> I prefer cutting this down to be arm-specific and "trade the spec file
complexity", since I see no reason for x86 (and other arch) customers (which I
believe
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1144#note_596135080
> is it worth throwing a 'include in release' label and seeing if this can
build in eln?
I have tagged it with "include in release" and done a test build with it
aga
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1144#note_595919862
> glibc 2.34 will detect `-march=z14` and refuse to run on z13 or earlier, to
avoid hard-to-diagnose crashes later. We learned the hard way that this very
desirable during the ppc6
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1144#note_595910611
> do we know which s390x machines ELN builds on?
The koji builders are Z13. They are running a Fedora kernel to do the build,
so the 5.13-rc5 eln build was done in koji running 5.1
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1167#note_595825564
Curious on this, as Fedora has been building with CORESIGHT for a bit now
(since July 2020). We did not case the changes on arch, and simply added
openscd-devel as a buildreq
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1155#note_595488507
We have been building with it here since rc4.
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1085#note_592234983
Acked-by: Justin Forbes
(via approve button)
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:22 AM Prarit Bhargava (via Email Bridge)
wrote:
>
> From: Prarit Bhargava on gitlab.com
> https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1165#note_592074102
>
> Would it hurt to switch Fedora to "is not set" with a note to THIS MR so we
> can point to this
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1165#note_592015240
I haven't had a request to turn on UV for Fedora, and I am not sure that there
is anyone interested in it, but I don't have an issue with flipping it on if
anyone
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1162#note_591410772
Acked-by: Justin Forbes
(via approve button)
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1163#note_591028806
Acked-by: Justin Forbes
(via approve button)
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1162#note_590350124
Added "include in releases" as the kernel will not build without it. I added
it to dist-git for rc4 in Fedora, which is building with this patch now
su
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1159#note_590315781
Acked-by: Justin Forbes
(via approve button)
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1159#note_587024136
So it seems Jens is against this for upstream, as IO_URING is "a core feature,
and something that more and more apps or libraries are relying on", which is
the direction it
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1159#note_586022475
Or just wait it out, I submitted it upstream. Pavel has at least acked it:
https://lore.kernel.org/io-
uring/0d335e81-9a94-ca60-5659-bb46080b9...@gmail.com/T/#t
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1159#note_585992923
And x86_64 at least has completed the build successfully for ELN with expert
removed and CONFIG_IO_URING turned off:
```
>cat
./lib/modules/5.13.0-0.rc3.20210526gitad9f25d33860
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1159#note_585939162
Not sure what Kconfig options you are saying it adds. In this case, it only
adds one for CONFIG_IO_URING. Running a test with the following diff show no
unset config options
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1159#note_585922609
ugh, you are correct, and annoyingly it doesn't show in our config prior to
build. I think I would rather see this patch changed to remove EXPERT than to
change the default
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1159#note_585905834
This patch seems completely unnecessary. As it stands, CONFIG_IO_URING is
locked behind CONFIG_EXPERT which is disabled for both Fedora and ELN/RHEL.
If that situation changes
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 12:53 PM Steve Dickson wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering why this Kconfig is not set in Fedora kernels
> (# CONFIG_NFS_DISABLE_UDP_SUPPORT is not set) when the
> default on in upstream:
>
> config NFS_DISABLE_UDP_SUPPORT
>bool "NFS: Disable NFS UDP protocol
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1155#note_585871204
I added the tag, so it should be in tomorrow's build. Not really happy with an
additional 76 lines to the spec, but I don't see another way
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1144#note_585698139
> If I need to push an other version I can add the Fedora update as well. This
MR already got way bigger than I expected. So I don't see a problem in adding
one more commit.
Eit
From: Justin Forbes on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1063#note_584373061
Acked-by: Justin Forbes
(via approve button)
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
1 - 100 of 472 matches
Mail list logo
