Hi,
Thanks for looking into this,
Robie Basak kirjoitti 19.10.2022 klo 19.55:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 09:58:36AM +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
Christopher James Halse Rogers kirjoitti 28.9.2022 klo 10.07:
It's not entirely clear to me what you want to do here.
If you need to fix some bugs in Jammy, and updating to thermald 2.5.0 is
basically the same as applying all the patches you'd need, then you can
just upload 2.5.0 and justify it in the SRU bug.
I've uploaded a backported thermald to jammy queue, anyone willing to have a
look? Focal is next once this is accepted.
This upload seems to contain various changes that aren't covered by SRU
bugs - for example to consider the risk of regression in changing that
code, or how you plan to test those fixes. So I don't think this fits
the conditions that Christopher noted above.
>
If you want to update thermald with a major version bump on the basis of
hardware enablement for new hardware, then that would be justifiable as
an SRU under existing policy, but we need to ensure that we do not
regress existing hardware or functionality.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/thermald provides some
justification there, but I don't think it's complete. For example, is it
possible that users are using thermald on hardware not covered by
upstream tests? By "all the unit tests must pass in all the supported
Intel CPUs", who defines "supported"? Is it possible that Ubuntu users
have hardware not covered by that definition of "supported"? Is there
any risk to users of non-Intel hardware? How complete is upstream's test
coverage? What assurance is there that there will be no feature
regressions?
For example, take the following upstream commit, which I think is being
included in this proposed SRU:
https://github.com/intel/thermal_daemon/commit/7e490fc79d784b3faf8314af98ec14981ba7fb75
If this code path was being used previously, I think that would be a
functional regression. 1) Is this safe in relation to Ubuntu kernel
versions? 2) Did this actually get checked before upload? 3) What in
your proposed QA process would catch this kind of change to ensure that
the specific requirements for each such deprecation is met in Ubuntu
stable releases?
I'll let Koba comment on the other points, but the sysfs interface has
been in the kernel since 5.3:
commit fdf4f2fb8e8990c131b2b1a5a9c03681bb16e87a
Author: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruv...@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon Jul 22 18:03:02 2019 -0700
drivers: thermal: processor_thermal_device: Export sysfs interface
for TCC offset
so a backport to focal (which is planned) should be safe in that regard.
--
t
--
Ubuntu-release mailing list
Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
