Fwd: question about state of F11 kernel
by Michał Piotrowski
Hi,
What is the state of F11 kernel? AFAIK 2.6.30 is not supported by
upstream for a month. Upgrade to 2.6.31 doesn't solve this problem,
because 2.6.31.12 is probably the latest from 31 series. I have seen
failed 2.6.32 build for F11 in koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=150432 . I would
like to know if you want to maintain 2.6.30 for whole F11 lifetime or
switch to 2.6.32 soon.
If you plan to switch to 2.6.32 soon I would like to get some test
kernels. I understand that things like F11 kernel support doesn't have
top priority while F13 development, but it is important to some of us.
Regards,
Michal
14 years, 3 months
Fwd: question about state of F11 kernel
by Michał Piotrowski
Hi,
What is the state of F11 kernel? AFAIK 2.6.30 is not supported by
upstream for a month. Upgrade to 2.6.31 doesn't solve this problem,
because 2.6.31.12 is probably the latest from 31 series. I have seen
failed 2.6.32 build for F11 in koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=150432 . I would
like to know if you want to maintain 2.6.30 for whole F11 lifetime or
switch to 2.6.32 soon.
If you plan to switch to 2.6.32 soon I would like to get some test
kernels. I understand that things like F11 kernel support doesn't have
top priority while F13 development, but it is important to some of us.
Regards,
Michal
14 years, 3 months
Fwd: question about state of F11 kernel
by Michał Piotrowski
Hi,
What is the state of F11 kernel? AFAIK 2.6.30 is not supported by
upstream for a month. Upgrade to 2.6.31 doesn't solve this problem,
because 2.6.31.12 is probably the latest from 31 series. I have seen
failed 2.6.32 build for F11 in koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=150432 . I would
like to know if you want to maintain 2.6.30 for whole F11 lifetime or
switch to 2.6.32 soon.
If you plan to switch to 2.6.32 soon I would like to get some test
kernels. I understand that things like F11 kernel support doesn't have
top priority while F13 development, but it is important to some of us.
Regards,
Michal
14 years, 3 months
Re: rpms/kernel/F-12 drm-nouveau-bios-paranoia.patch, NONE, 1.1 drm-nouveau-g80-ctxprog.patch, NONE, 1.1 drm-nouveau-nvac-noaccel.patch, NONE, 1.1 drm-nouveau-safetile-getparam.patch, NONE, 1.1 drm-nouveau-shared-fb.patch, NONE, 1.1 drm-nouveau-tvout-disable.patch, NONE, 1.1 kernel.spec, 1.1974, 1.1975
by David Woodhouse
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 00:14 +0000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv50.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv50.ctxvals.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv84.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv84.ctxvals.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv86.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv86.ctxvals.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv92.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv92.ctxvals.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv94.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv94.ctxvals.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv96.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv96.ctxvals.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv98.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nv98.ctxvals.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nva0.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nva0.ctxvals.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nva5.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nva5.ctxvals.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nva8.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nva8.ctxvals.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nvaa.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nvaa.ctxvals.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nvac.ctxprog.ihex
> create mode 100644 firmware/nouveau/nvac.ctxvals.ihex
In rawhide we're no longer building kernel-firmware packages from the
kernel source; we have the linux-firmware package from its upstream
instead.
Nobody should be adding _new_ non-GPL code to the kernel's firmware/
directory -- that was always intended as a temporary measure and we're
hoping to _remove_ what we have there, not add to it.
--
dwmw2
14 years, 3 months
tagged for 2.6.32
by Kyle McMartin
So we're moving to 2.6.32 across F-11 & F-12, as such
I've tagged the old kernels on those branches.
F-11 2.6.30 is on branch private-fedora-11-2_6_30
F-12 2.6.31 is on branch private-fedora-12-2_6_31
The devel/ sources from 2.6.32 are on
private-rawhide-2_6_32.
Kyle.
14 years, 3 months
Fedora 11/12 kernels as xen domU
by Norman Gaywood
[Originally sent this to fedora-list but thought it may get more
attention here.]
Is anyone having any stability with the fedora kernels running as a Xen
DomU. Dom0 is a Centos 5.4 2.6.18-164.9.1.el5xen kernel.
These fedora kernels seem to lockup (processes get stuck in D state)
whenever put under any load:
kernel-2.6.30.10-105.fc11.x86_64
kernel-2.6.31.6-166.fc12.x86_64
kernel-2.6.31.9-174.fc12.x86_64
Yes, I tried a fedora 11 kernel on a fedora 12 system. This is the most
stable for me.
Here are some bugzilla entries (one posted by me) that point to this
problem:
kernel 2.6.31 processes lock up in D state
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550724
FC12 2.6.31.9-174.fc12.x86_64 hangs under heavy disk I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551552
--
Norman Gaywood, Computer Systems Officer
University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
ngaywood(a)une.edu.au Phone: +61 (0)2 6773 3337
http://mcs.une.edu.au/~norm Fax: +61 (0)2 6773 3312
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
14 years, 3 months
CPU hotplug
by Sankar
Currently the cpu hotplug (bringing the cpu to online/offline state)
operations are serialized. I was trying to check the possibilities if
certain things can be done in parallel here. (like if tried to bring down
two processors at the same moment)
In the cpu offline path, a call is made to __stop_machine (whose description
say : This causes a thread to be scheduled on every cpu, each of which
disables interrupts. The result is that noone is holding a spinlock or
inside any other preempt-disabled region when @fn() runs. This function
assumes cpus won't come or go while it's being called. Used by hotplug cpu.)
take_cpu_down (which disables the local apic, makes modifications in the
ioapic redirection vector table, modifies the state of the cpu maps, sends
CPU_DYING to registered callbacks and finally schedules the idle thread) is
the function that gets executed in the target cpu (i.e. the cpu that goes
offline) during this entire system halt state.
I am trying to understand the main reason for using stop_machine to run
take_cpu_down. What are all the main operations done that expects this state
of system? Is it because of the cpu maps (which are mostly readonly) getting
modified or the modifications to IOAPIC redirection vector table entries?
Thanks
Sankar
14 years, 3 months
