6:54 p.m.
How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
there issues merging it?
It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole month...
12:32 p.m.
On 12/29/2009 04:54 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or
are
there issues merging it?
It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole month...
Oh, here it comes now!
7:47 p.m.
Russell Miller wrote:
On Saturday 06 March 2010 05:59:14 pm Antonio Olivares wrote:
> On another note, due to the inability of Fedora to release a 2.6.32 kernel,
> I was on the impression that IT was going to be SKIPPED to make way for
> 2.6.33 and its many IMPROVEMENTS. Like John I will compile the new kernel
> as soon as I can and see if the native nouveau just works because I could
> not go back to a previous 2.6.30 kernel that I compiled because it(noveau)
> did not build and I did not want to use the nvidia driver just yet.
>
I haven't filed a bug yet but I'm about to - FC12 actually regressed on my
laptop. The FC11 kernel is working just fine and boots right into a
framebuffer. FC12 just reboots. Multiple kernel updates haven't fixed it.
Try the original 2.6.31.5, only one which doesn't lock my touchpad. Home built
2.6.33-rc6 worked, wouldn't resume.
--Russell
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
5:43 p.m.
On 03/07/2010 09:01 AM, psmith wrote:
On 06/03/10 23:58, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> Funny you should mention that.. ati driver doesn't work for me on .32 -
> for now I'm back on .31 :\
> Didn't try radeonhd and nomodeset yet, but not too hopeful.
>
>
radeon with mesa-experimental is working great here on f12 with 2.6.34 :)
nomodeset fixed my issues.
Strangely, with KMS it boots without a problem but only sometimes.
But framerate in glxgears doubles without KMS, so I guess I better keep
it off for now anyway
11:01 a.m.
On 06/03/10 23:58, Konstantin Svist wrote:
On 03/06/2010 03:14 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 14:04:06 -0800,
> john wendel<jwendel10(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> But 2.6.33 has already been released.
>>
>>
> Graphics and kernels are tied together in a way that makes backporting
> kernels more difficult. This is part of the reason that you aren't seeing
> the new kernels appear in older releases as soon as they used to.
> There is long discussion related to this about how the nouveau abi change
> makes it hard to switch kernels on the linux kernel mailing list.
>
>
Funny you should mention that.. ati driver doesn't work for me on .32 -
for now I'm back on .31 :\
Didn't try radeonhd and nomodeset yet, but not too hopeful.
radeon with mesa-experimental is working great here on f12 with 2.6.34 :)
6:21 p.m.
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:58:35 -0800
Konstantin Svist wrote:
Funny you should mention that.. ati driver doesn't work for me on
.32 -
for now I'm back on .31 :\
Didn't try radeonhd and nomodeset yet, but not too hopeful.
Fascinating. I had the exact opposite experience with new kernel
and ati driver:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562607#c14
I can actually run some 3D apps now without my system freezing
up solid as a rock (and others will still make it freeze).
I think maybe the ATI driver is in wack-a-mole mode - whatever
fixes one system breaks another one worse :-).
2:46 a.m.
Having just been burned with the F13 RC4 Alpha, the new x11 nouveau
stuff makes using the nvidia (proprietary) driver temporarily impossible
(and the 3d nouveau won't even run extremetuxracer or bzflag, so it's
out 'cuz my 3yr old says so!) as you get a need for -ingoreABI for the
xinput stuff. The new x11 provides version 9 and the nvidia driver needs
"<8" or something like that. In any event, the system dies. Not looking
forward to F12 pushing the new x11 bits until Nvidia wakes up to the
coming flames.
--
Chris Kloiber
On 03/06/2010 06:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 18:24:48 -0500,
Mail Lists<lists(a)sapience.com> wrote:
>
> I use nouveau - and I cannot at present run 2.6.33 or 2.6.34 wihout
> essentially pulling in a lot of X. Tho' according to satisfy linus'
> complaint, it looks like on ecould compile the nouveau driver and use
> that - however - it sure would be nice if the nouveau folks made it
> easier to run both 2.6.32 and also the newer kernels on F12.
More likely it will be on the Fedora Project to do this.
8:16 p.m.
On Saturday 06 March 2010 05:59:14 pm Antonio Olivares wrote:
On another note, due to the inability of Fedora to release a 2.6.32
kernel,
I was on the impression that IT was going to be SKIPPED to make way for
2.6.33 and its many IMPROVEMENTS. Like John I will compile the new kernel
as soon as I can and see if the native nouveau just works because I could
not go back to a previous 2.6.30 kernel that I compiled because it(noveau)
did not build and I did not want to use the nvidia driver just yet.
I haven't filed a bug yet but I'm about to - FC12 actually regressed on my
laptop. The FC11 kernel is working just fine and boots right into a
framebuffer. FC12 just reboots. Multiple kernel updates haven't fixed it.
--Russell
8:10 p.m.
On 03/06/2010 08:59 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
--
I see that *JUST RECENTLY* there was a 2.6.32.9.X-fc12 kernel being released to test out.
ON rawhide there is a 2.6.34.rc1? kernel. For Fedora stable, *IT IS TAKING TOO LONG* to
push the kernels. Hey those that say that Fedora is BLEEDING EDGE are now being denied
that claim. Slackware which is known for stability and NOT in the upgrade constantly
frenzy is at 2.6.33
olivares@darkstar:~$ uname -r
2.6.33-smp
olivares@darkstar:~$ cat /etc/slackware-version
Slackware 13.0.0.0.0
But to give you credit, where credit is due. Many users out there are having trouble
because of the noveau getting in the way of the nvidia drivers and this is causing lots of
headaches and *Fedora is doing the right thing* to wait and make sure that things work out
before releasing the kernels RIGHT?
On another note, due to the inability of Fedora to release a 2.6.32 kernel, I was on the
impression that IT was going to be SKIPPED to make way for 2.6.33 and its many
IMPROVEMENTS. Like John I will compile the new kernel as soon as I can and see if the
native nouveau just works because I could not go back to a previous 2.6.30 kernel that I
compiled because it(noveau) did not build and I did not want to use the nvidia driver just
yet.
You may want to check Linus' issues with nouveau in the newer kernels
on linux-kernel ML - as alluded to earlier in thread.
Just plopping the kernel onto f12 with nouveau may well not work (coz
of ABI changes in nouvouch) - certainly for me neither .33 not .34 from
fc13 and rawhide respectively work - however if you try and pull the
new nouvouh driver it needs then it also needs a new xorg server and drm
and ... so its a slippery slope.
Now Dave Airlie gave linus a source for nouvea driver which will run on
f12 without pulling in all the other stuff ... i think.
Anyway if you find a clean way to try newer kernels (which I need coz
of some nasty iwlagn bugs) so I can confirm they are fixed in kernels >=
2.6.33 .. please let me know.
gene
7:59 p.m.
--- On Sat, 3/6/10, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to>
Subject: Re: Where is 2.6.32?
To: "john wendel" <jwendel10(a)comcast.net>
Cc: users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2010, 3:14 PM
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 14:04:06
-0800,
john wendel <jwendel10(a)comcast.net>
wrote:
>
> But 2.6.33 has already been released.
Graphics and kernels are tied together in a way that makes
backporting
kernels more difficult. This is part of the reason that you
aren't seeing
the new kernels appear in older releases as soon as they
used to.
There is long discussion related to this about how the
nouveau abi change
makes it hard to switch kernels on the linux kernel mailing
list.
--
I see that *JUST RECENTLY* there was a 2.6.32.9.X-fc12 kernel being released to test out.
ON rawhide there is a 2.6.34.rc1? kernel. For Fedora stable, *IT IS TAKING TOO LONG* to
push the kernels. Hey those that say that Fedora is BLEEDING EDGE are now being denied
that claim. Slackware which is known for stability and NOT in the upgrade constantly
frenzy is at 2.6.33
olivares@darkstar:~$ uname -r
2.6.33-smp
olivares@darkstar:~$ cat /etc/slackware-version
Slackware 13.0.0.0.0
But to give you credit, where credit is due. Many users out there are having trouble
because of the noveau getting in the way of the nvidia drivers and this is causing lots of
headaches and *Fedora is doing the right thing* to wait and make sure that things work out
before releasing the kernels RIGHT?
On another note, due to the inability of Fedora to release a 2.6.32 kernel, I was on the
impression that IT was going to be SKIPPED to make way for 2.6.33 and its many
IMPROVEMENTS. Like John I will compile the new kernel as soon as I can and see if the
native nouveau just works because I could not go back to a previous 2.6.30 kernel that I
compiled because it(noveau) did not build and I did not want to use the nvidia driver just
yet.
Regards,
Antonio
5:39 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 18:24:48 -0500,
Mail Lists <lists(a)sapience.com> wrote:
I use nouveau - and I cannot at present run 2.6.33 or 2.6.34 wihout
essentially pulling in a lot of X. Tho' according to satisfy linus'
complaint, it looks like on ecould compile the nouveau driver and use
that - however - it sure would be nice if the nouveau folks made it
easier to run both 2.6.32 and also the newer kernels on F12.
More likely it will be on the Fedora Project to do this.
5:24 p.m.
On 03/06/2010 06:14 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 14:04:06 -0800,
john wendel <jwendel10(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> But 2.6.33 has already been released.
Graphics and kernels are tied together in a way that makes backporting
kernels more difficult. This is part of the reason that you aren't seeing
the new kernels appear in older releases as soon as they used to.
There is long discussion related to this about how the nouveau abi change
makes it hard to switch kernels on the linux kernel mailing list.
I use nouveau - and I cannot at present run 2.6.33 or 2.6.34 wihout
essentially pulling in a lot of X. Tho' according to satisfy linus'
complaint, it looks like on ecould compile the nouveau driver and use
that - however - it sure would be nice if the nouveau folks made it
easier to run both 2.6.32 and also the newer kernels on F12.
5:58 p.m.
On 03/06/2010 03:14 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 14:04:06 -0800,
john wendel <jwendel10(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> But 2.6.33 has already been released.
>
Graphics and kernels are tied together in a way that makes backporting
kernels more difficult. This is part of the reason that you aren't seeing
the new kernels appear in older releases as soon as they used to.
There is long discussion related to this about how the nouveau abi change
makes it hard to switch kernels on the linux kernel mailing list.
Funny you should mention that.. ati driver doesn't work for me on .32 -
for now I'm back on .31 :\
Didn't try radeonhd and nomodeset yet, but not too hopeful.
4:04 p.m.
On 03/06/2010 10:32 AM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
On 12/29/2009 04:54 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
> there issues merging it?
> It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
> see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole month...
>
>
Oh, here it comes now!
But 2.6.33 has already been released.
Regards,
John
[happily running 2.6.33 on F11]
5:14 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 14:04:06 -0800,
john wendel <jwendel10(a)comcast.net> wrote:
But 2.6.33 has already been released.
Graphics and kernels are tied together in a way that makes backporting
kernels more difficult. This is part of the reason that you aren't seeing
the new kernels appear in older releases as soon as they used to.
There is long discussion related to this about how the nouveau abi change
makes it hard to switch kernels on the linux kernel mailing list.
4:31 p.m.
On 12/31/2009 12:14 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Konstantin Svist wrote:
> On 12/31/2009 09:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance
>> regression issues of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some
>> developers will ignore if you get a trace, etc.
>
> I thought it's only tainted if there are non-GPL modules compiled in.
> For instance, I saw the tainted message whenever I insmod'ed fglrx driver
>
You're right, I am assuming he was talking about the nvidia modules
which are not GPL, when he mentioned 2.6.32.2+Nvidia. So it would only
me tainted if he wanted to have graphics. Or the licensing may have
changed, things are not the same for long.
Who needs the Fedora patches? I'm not missing them here. Can you tell me
exactly the patches I'm missing and what they would do for me? If these
patches are so valuable, why aren't they submitted upstream so the world
can benefit. Maybe because Linus doesn't want them?
I haven't noticed any disk performance regression/problem. Maybe I don't
beat it hard enough. hdparm -Tt shows 60.84 MB/s with the fedora kernel
and 61.09 MB/s with my kernel. I know there's a CFS throughput problem,
but that's easily fixed.
My Fedora kernel would also be tainted, since I have to run the Nvidia
driver in any case.
I don't see any down side to running my own kernel. Plus I save 8MB of
kernel memory (enough to negate the bloated Nvidia driver), and I enjoy
the tweaking.
Best wishes in the new year!
John
2:14 p.m.
Konstantin Svist wrote:
On 12/31/2009 09:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance
> regression issues of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some
> developers will ignore if you get a trace, etc.
I thought it's only tainted if there are non-GPL modules compiled in.
For instance, I saw the tainted message whenever I insmod'ed fglrx driver
You're right, I am assuming he was talking about the nvidia modules which are
not GPL, when he mentioned 2.6.32.2+Nvidia. So it would only me tainted if he
wanted to have graphics. Or the licensing may have changed, things are not the
same for long.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
11:26 a.m.
On 12/31/2009 09:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance
regression issues of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some
developers will ignore if you get a trace, etc.
I thought it's only tainted if there are non-GPL modules compiled in.
For instance, I saw the tainted message whenever I insmod'ed fglrx driver
11:10 a.m.
john wendel wrote:
On 12/30/2009 06:08 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Konstantin Svist wrote:
>> How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
>> there issues merging it?
>> It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
>> see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole month...
>>
> My personal experience with building 2.6.32.recent is that if they
> enhance the video drivers any more we will be running text only. Let the
> developers have the holiday off, and hopefully they will have run 2.6.32
> on their laptops and be motivated to work on it.
>
> A new year is coming.
>
F11 with kernel.org 2.6.32.2 + Nvidia driver working fine here. You
really should learn to build a kernel from sources, once you get the
config file done, the rest is easy.
And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance regression issues
of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some developers will ignore if you get a
trace, etc. And the last time I looked there was no ATI patch for 2.6.32.2
unless I missed it.
Building from source means it will compile, not that it will work.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
11:30 p.m.
On 12/30/2009 06:08 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
My personal experience with building 2.6.32.recent is that if they
enhance the video drivers any more we will be running text only. Let
the developers have the holiday off, and hopefully they will have run
2.6.32 on their laptops and be motivated to work on it.
A new year is coming.
Ouch, good point :D
11:25 p.m.
On 12/30/2009 07:39 PM, john wendel wrote:
F11 with kernel.org 2.6.32.2 + Nvidia driver working fine here. You
really should learn to build a kernel from sources, once you get the
config file done, the rest is easy.
I've done this way: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/CustomKernel
But don't think it'll work so easily with vanilla - there's a boatload
of patches from redhat, I don't really want to check myself which ones
need to be applied and which don't.
9:39 p.m.
On 12/30/2009 06:08 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Konstantin Svist wrote:
> How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
> there issues merging it?
> It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
> see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole month...
>
My personal experience with building 2.6.32.recent is that if they
enhance the video drivers any more we will be running text only. Let the
developers have the holiday off, and hopefully they will have run 2.6.32
on their laptops and be motivated to work on it.
A new year is coming.
F11 with kernel.org 2.6.32.2 + Nvidia driver working fine here. You
really should learn to build a kernel from sources, once you get the
config file done, the rest is easy.
Regards,
John
8:08 p.m.
Konstantin Svist wrote:
How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or
are
there issues merging it?
It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole month...
My personal experience with building 2.6.32.recent is that if they enhance the
video drivers any more we will be running text only. Let the developers have the
holiday off, and hopefully they will have run 2.6.32 on their laptops and be
motivated to work on it.
A new year is coming.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
9:33 a.m.
On 12/30/2009 08:07 AM, Mike Cloaked wrote:
Paulo Cavalcanti <promac <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-December/msg01138....
Paulo Roma CavalcantiLCG - UFRJ
>
Ahh - thank you - there is usually a good reason for these things...
No, thats a really weird reason - the bug was noted in 2.62.32.rc4
...or earlier back in late november .. it was fixed in rc5 and in final
(dated dec 03).
Don't understand why fedora 2.6.32 should have an old bug ... are we
backporting bugs ? Or is the build in koji not been updated since rc4 ?
7:07 a.m.
Paulo Cavalcanti <promac <at> gmail.com> writes:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-December/msg01138....
Paulo Roma CavalcantiLCG - UFRJ
Ahh - thank you - there is usually a good reason for these things...
5:25 a.m.
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Mike Cloaked <mike.cloaked(a)gmail.com>wrote:
Mail Lists <lists <at> sapience.com> writes:
>
> On 12/29/2009 07:54 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> > How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
> > there issues merging it?
> > It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
> > see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole month...
> >
>
> Its not even in Koji ... unfortunately .. tho you may want to post
> this in fedora-dev or fedora-test rather than the "Community assistance,
> encouragement, and advice for using Fedora. list ...
>
It looks like the kernel guys have been on a Christmas break - there are no
kernel builds at all in koji since the 24th.... maybe they will return
with
replenished New Year vigour and push out .32 for f11 and f12 before we can
blink
an eye! (Well we can hope anyway!)
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-December/msg01138....
--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ
5:12 a.m.
Mail Lists <lists <at> sapience.com> writes:
On 12/29/2009 07:54 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
> How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
> there issues merging it?
> It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
> see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole month...
>
Its not even in Koji ... unfortunately .. tho you may want to post
this in fedora-dev or fedora-test rather than the "Community assistance,
encouragement, and advice for using Fedora. list ...
It looks like the kernel guys have been on a Christmas break - there are no
kernel builds at all in koji since the 24th.... maybe they will return with
replenished New Year vigour and push out .32 for f11 and f12 before we can blink
an eye! (Well we can hope anyway!)
10:07 p.m.
On 12/29/2009 07:54 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or
are
there issues merging it?
It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole month...
Its not even in Koji ... unfortunately .. tho you may want to post
this in fedora-dev or fedora-test rather than the "Community assistance,
encouragement, and advice for using Fedora. list ... ;-)
11:32 p.m.
john wendel wrote:
On 12/31/2009 12:14 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Konstantin Svist wrote:
>> On 12/31/2009 09:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>> And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance
>>> regression issues of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some
>>> developers will ignore if you get a trace, etc.
>>
>> I thought it's only tainted if there are non-GPL modules compiled in.
>> For instance, I saw the tainted message whenever I insmod'ed fglrx
>> driver
>>
> You're right, I am assuming he was talking about the nvidia modules
> which are not GPL, when he mentioned 2.6.32.2+Nvidia. So it would only
> me tainted if he wanted to have graphics. Or the licensing may have
> changed, things are not the same for long.
>
Who needs the Fedora patches? I'm not missing them here. Can you tell me
exactly the patches I'm missing and what they would do for me? If these
patches are so valuable, why aren't they submitted upstream so the world
can benefit. Maybe because Linus doesn't want them?
I haven't noticed any disk performance regression/problem. Maybe I don't
beat it hard enough. hdparm -Tt shows 60.84 MB/s with the fedora kernel
and 61.09 MB/s with my kernel. I know there's a CFS throughput problem,
but that's easily fixed.
You probably won't see a problem with random access using the hdpart
sequential
access test ;-) But there's a thread in LKML something like" 30% regression in
random throughput" and depending on what you do you will really see that.
My Fedora kernel would also be tainted, since I have to run the
Nvidia
driver in any case.
I don't see any down side to running my own kernel. Plus I save 8MB of
kernel memory (enough to negate the bloated Nvidia driver), and I enjoy
the tweaking.
I was mentioning 2.6.32 particularly, not building kernels in general. I built
that to try the new video drivers (lock up and run 3x slower than vesa for me),
and BFS (guess I don't trigger anything that shows its advantages, if any). But
I don't bother to build daily kernels unless there a good reason. Been there
done that, ran -ck, -aa, -mm, and -ac kernels, built 2.5 kernels daily, 3-4/day
when CFS patches were coming out a lot, and unless I have a patch to test I
leave it to others.
Best wishes in the new year!
John
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
5161
days inactive
5229
days old
28 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Antonio Olivares -
Bill Davidsen -
Bruno Wolff III -
Chris Kloiber -
Genes MailLists -
John Wendel -
Konstantin Svist -
mike cloaked -
Paulo Cavalcanti -
psmith -
Russell Miller -
Tom Horsley