[opensuse-kernel] taking extended stable from Ubuntu
Hi, I ported the first "extended stable" patch from the tree Ubuntu is using to the kernel of OS 13.2. How do I make it available for review? Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/13/2015, 05:19 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
I ported the first "extended stable" patch from the tree Ubuntu is using to the kernel of OS 13.2. How do I make it available for review?
You mean review of: * code? => attach a patch against the oS 13.2 kernel * package? => './scripts/osc_wrapper upload home:oneukum:oS132' 8-) regards, -- js suse labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 19:10 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 05/13/2015, 05:19 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
I ported the first "extended stable" patch from the tree Ubuntu is using to the kernel of OS 13.2. How do I make it available for review?
You mean review of: * code? => attach a patch against the oS 13.2 kernel * package? => './scripts/osc_wrapper upload home:oneukum:oS132'
OK. You find the project under home:oneukum:oS132-ckt1-review How can I check that I preserved the kABI? If you like the concept, I am ready to port them all back. I think we cannot leave the 13.2 kernel tree as is. We are missing too many patches. Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/28/2015, 10:04 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 19:10 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 05/13/2015, 05:19 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
I ported the first "extended stable" patch from the tree Ubuntu is using to the kernel of OS 13.2. How do I make it available for review?
You mean review of: * code? => attach a patch against the oS 13.2 kernel * package? => './scripts/osc_wrapper upload home:oneukum:oS132'
OK. You find the project under home:oneukum:oS132-ckt1-review
How can I check that I preserved the kABI?
Implicitly, unless you have IGNORE_KABI_BADNESS file in your sources. But openSUSE 13.2 has never had frozen kabi apparently: $ git ls-tree origin/openSUSE-13.2 kabi/x86_64/ <nothing>
If you like the concept, I am ready to port them all back. I think we cannot leave the 13.2 kernel tree as is. We are missing too many patches.
I agree, but you have to talk to Jeff, the maintainer of the branch, if he agrees as well. regards, -- js suse labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/28/2015, 10:11 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
But openSUSE 13.2 has never had frozen kabi apparently: $ git ls-tree origin/openSUSE-13.2 kabi/x86_64/ <nothing>
Which is intended as I was taught right now. -- js suse labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:14 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:11 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
But openSUSE 13.2 has never had frozen kabi apparently: $ git ls-tree origin/openSUSE-13.2 kabi/x86_64/ <nothing>
Which is intended as I was taught right now.
What has taught you so? And is this decision temporary or final? I would hate to be told to fix the kABI half a year later or so. Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/28/2015, 10:36 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:14 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:11 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
But openSUSE 13.2 has never had frozen kabi apparently: $ git ls-tree origin/openSUSE-13.2 kabi/x86_64/ <nothing>
Which is intended as I was taught right now.
What has taught you so?
Michal Marek told me so.
And is this decision temporary or final?
Permanent. It allegedly does not warrant the burden. All KMPs are built to require exact kernel version instead of kabi version. -- js suse labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:36 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:14 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:11 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
But openSUSE 13.2 has never had frozen kabi apparently: $ git ls-tree origin/openSUSE-13.2 kabi/x86_64/ <nothing>
Which is intended as I was taught right now.
What has taught you so?
Michal Marek told me so.
And is this decision temporary or final?
Permanent. It allegedly does not warrant the burden. All KMPs are built to require exact kernel version instead of kabi version.
For 13.2? This is definitely not the case at least for nVidia RPMs (the only KMPs I have). We even had the case of broken and fixed kABI ... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:27 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:36 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:14 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:11 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
But openSUSE 13.2 has never had frozen kabi apparently: $ git ls-tree origin/openSUSE-13.2 kabi/x86_64/ <nothing>
Which is intended as I was taught right now.
What has taught you so?
Michal Marek told me so.
And is this decision temporary or final?
Permanent. It allegedly does not warrant the burden. All KMPs are built to require exact kernel version instead of kabi version.
For 13.2? This is definitely not the case at least for nVidia RPMs (the only KMPs I have). We even had the case of broken and fixed kABI ...
Now, what am I to make of this? Suppose I need to keep the ABI stable, would you still think the "extended stable" stuff should go in? Is it worth the effort? Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
At Thu, 28 May 2015 11:57:45 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:27 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:36 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:14 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:11 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
But openSUSE 13.2 has never had frozen kabi apparently: $ git ls-tree origin/openSUSE-13.2 kabi/x86_64/ <nothing>
Which is intended as I was taught right now.
What has taught you so?
Michal Marek told me so.
And is this decision temporary or final?
Permanent. It allegedly does not warrant the burden. All KMPs are built to require exact kernel version instead of kabi version.
For 13.2? This is definitely not the case at least for nVidia RPMs (the only KMPs I have). We even had the case of broken and fixed kABI ...
Now, what am I to make of this?
Suppose I need to keep the ABI stable, would you still think the "extended stable" stuff should go in? Is it worth the effort?
It means we should select and take only reasonable ones, not blindly copy all. My understanding about kABI on openSUSE kernel is that we should try to keep it as much as possible, but it's never guaranteed like SLE. Most of kABI changes are easily fixable, fortunately. BTW, if you'll take patches, please create a bugzilla entry to track. thanks, Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:13 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 28 May 2015 11:57:45 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:27 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:36 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:14 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:11 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote: > But openSUSE 13.2 has never had frozen kabi apparently: > $ git ls-tree origin/openSUSE-13.2 kabi/x86_64/ > <nothing>
Which is intended as I was taught right now.
What has taught you so?
Michal Marek told me so.
And is this decision temporary or final?
Permanent. It allegedly does not warrant the burden. All KMPs are built to require exact kernel version instead of kabi version.
For 13.2? This is definitely not the case at least for nVidia RPMs (the only KMPs I have). We even had the case of broken and fixed kABI ...
Now, what am I to make of this?
Suppose I need to keep the ABI stable, would you still think the "extended stable" stuff should go in? Is it worth the effort?
It means we should select and take only reasonable ones, not blindly copy all.
I cannot filter a stable tree. I can backport the patches, I can fix kABI breakages if a tool detects them, but I cannot in effect redo a large part of the work of a maintainer of a stable tree. The basic decision, that is, do we treat the patches from Ubuntu as a stable tree and trust them needs to be made. I can do specific things, but I cannot redo the process of selecting patches for stable.
My understanding about kABI on openSUSE kernel is that we should try to keep it as much as possible, but it's never guaranteed like SLE. Most of kABI changes are easily fixable, fortunately.
Sure, but how am I to test that? Install a 13.2 system and reinstall the Nvidia KMPs?
BTW, if you'll take patches, please create a bugzilla entry to track.
We didn't do that for regular stable patches. Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
At Thu, 28 May 2015 12:28:55 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:13 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 28 May 2015 11:57:45 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:27 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:36 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:14 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 05/28/2015, 10:11 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> But openSUSE 13.2 has never had frozen kabi apparently: >> $ git ls-tree origin/openSUSE-13.2 kabi/x86_64/ >> <nothing> > > Which is intended as I was taught right now.
What has taught you so?
Michal Marek told me so.
And is this decision temporary or final?
Permanent. It allegedly does not warrant the burden. All KMPs are built to require exact kernel version instead of kabi version.
For 13.2? This is definitely not the case at least for nVidia RPMs (the only KMPs I have). We even had the case of broken and fixed kABI ...
Now, what am I to make of this?
Suppose I need to keep the ABI stable, would you still think the "extended stable" stuff should go in? Is it worth the effort?
It means we should select and take only reasonable ones, not blindly copy all.
I cannot filter a stable tree. I can backport the patches, I can fix kABI breakages if a tool detects them, but I cannot in effect redo a large part of the work of a maintainer of a stable tree.
Well, we do fix kABI breakage even from stable tree if it makes more sense than leaving as is. As said, it's just not guaranteed, but we usually try ourselves serving good for users.
The basic decision, that is, do we treat the patches from Ubuntu as a stable tree and trust them needs to be made. I can do specific things, but I cannot redo the process of selecting patches for stable.
Yes, this is the biggest question. This has been already discussed multiple times, but always faded without proper conclusion. I don't think we'd want to take Ubuntu's patches blindly. It's not neutral, at least. Practically seen, how to deal with bugs / regressions with this tree? Do we use Launchpad and discuss there for bugs of openSUSE kernel?
My understanding about kABI on openSUSE kernel is that we should try to keep it as much as possible, but it's never guaranteed like SLE. Most of kABI changes are easily fixable, fortunately.
Sure, but how am I to test that? Install a 13.2 system and reinstall the Nvidia KMPs?
Most of kABI breakages can be seen via code review. The rest would be rather passive reaction, I suppose.
BTW, if you'll take patches, please create a bugzilla entry to track.
We didn't do that for regular stable patches.
Yes, for regular stable updates. Now it's not regular one, IMO. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:46 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 28 May 2015 12:28:55 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:13 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 28 May 2015 11:57:45 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
It means we should select and take only reasonable ones, not blindly copy all.
I cannot filter a stable tree. I can backport the patches, I can fix kABI breakages if a tool detects them, but I cannot in effect redo a large part of the work of a maintainer of a stable tree.
Well, we do fix kABI breakage even from stable tree if it makes more sense than leaving as is. As said, it's just not guaranteed, but we usually try ourselves serving good for users.
That is perfectly good. I just would like the detection to be automatic.
The basic decision, that is, do we treat the patches from Ubuntu as a stable tree and trust them needs to be made. I can do specific things, but I cannot redo the process of selecting patches for stable.
Yes, this is the biggest question. This has been already discussed multiple times, but always faded without proper conclusion. I don't
The problem is that time works against us.
think we'd want to take Ubuntu's patches blindly. It's not neutral, at least.
I am afraid, it will be taking them in bulk or not at all. Clearly I don't have time to review so many patches. And I strongly suspect nobody has that much time.
Practically seen, how to deal with bugs / regressions with this tree? Do we use Launchpad and discuss there for bugs of openSUSE kernel?
We still have patches that don't go there. I'd say a problem with a stable tree belongs on lkml. It is unlikely that it would be specific to that tree.
We didn't do that for regular stable patches.
Yes, for regular stable updates. Now it's not regular one, IMO.
That seems problematic to me. We cannot make bugzillas for all patches in an "extended stable" update. So what use is a bnc? And furthermore the idea to have a semistable upstream seems to combine the disadvantages of using a stable tree with the disadvantages of not using a stable tree. Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 5/28/15 5:27 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:36 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:14 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:11 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
But openSUSE 13.2 has never had frozen kabi apparently: $ git ls-tree origin/openSUSE-13.2 kabi/x86_64/ <nothing>
Which is intended as I was taught right now.
What has taught you so?
Michal Marek told me so.
And is this decision temporary or final?
Permanent. It allegedly does not warrant the burden. All KMPs are built to require exact kernel version instead of kabi version.
For 13.2? This is definitely not the case at least for nVidia RPMs (the only KMPs I have). We even had the case of broken and fixed kABI ...
Yeah, it wasn't my intention to not have kABI enforcement for 13.2. In not having enough hours in the day, I just forgot to add the kABI reference files to the repository that perform the checking. I'm adding them now to a private repository to ensure everything is working as expected and then I'll push them to the public one. - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVZyiPAAoJEB57S2MheeWyEicP/1X64cG3gh8FS57GGqU9lxOC LQ9xFRn/waYKGavIabZOR02svqpCErVHzz/I+Fi3XVhZsLzT2lbfSFEkhh63dUNd 2X/4DixPBo3o4Hfe3qw91+7K6d0O/FhboWAHYjoYGMY8nEqvL/Xpte0ADRMmZyp/ wUZCBiuM0tN2BQBsav0Jr0q2tcVCPGth5R/VO1R3+k+yO9ywyKMR6nGgBRDntB+Y W6Yw4hg8o3pFbDIEEXXSNt0nPAmkf1kItQq6beOAcECkNbv0cihmm1aDDRE6Co8f C5qmazkEuJzRg0lMMNeu1pMWqkaq675ecm1Hgex2uP2RDaz+dpQqR5mNENkYH7F+ lJAG4EYgOA2CP9n6r2x+QRY+OWv9gVpF2e+BWz3IgbODZ/2IyaLI+sboE7aXlNzJ oY2McgDjcen0hRyzQHTlYixanLwXBwv4HBZuVryx3glrNrT2ODuyVaIg4LJHbdpv PhnEpdWtr6D4metF3V9Ma4nOvs6AM63cCasYUXQLuPC5WGtg+hXYPJKGXDz0E9Pw fT3qeuAs98yniVaxy2pG26FQve3189nPWavWS67qrzVZApysqmj06/vPV6hamW9E SW/qjx/+hTXzNyVpZAF93XbPw7BSYE1ABwCJytCIHnyjL7SJ3q17XoUHmO7tgerf +xUOywK5dSVDQnjd1f2n =G5ZT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 5/28/15 10:39 AM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
On 5/28/15 5:27 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:36 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:14 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 05/28/2015, 10:11 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
But openSUSE 13.2 has never had frozen kabi apparently: $ git ls-tree origin/openSUSE-13.2 kabi/x86_64/ <nothing>
Which is intended as I was taught right now.
What has taught you so?
Michal Marek told me so.
And is this decision temporary or final?
Permanent. It allegedly does not warrant the burden. All KMPs are built to require exact kernel version instead of kabi version.
For 13.2? This is definitely not the case at least for nVidia RPMs (the only KMPs I have). We even had the case of broken and fixed kABI ...
Yeah, it wasn't my intention to not have kABI enforcement for 13.2. In not having enough hours in the day, I just forgot to add the kABI reference files to the repository that perform the checking. I'm adding them now to a private repository to ensure everything is working as expected and then I'll push them to the public one.
I've committed the kABI reference files and adjusted severities to accept the changes. commit 273fd57812ddd2de677c9e1900d377c921d83b4b Author: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com> Date: Thu May 28 11:35:39 2015 -0400 kabi/severities: ignore already-broken but acceptable kABI changes - SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRING=n change removed system_trusted_keyring - Commits 3688875f852 and ea5ed8c70e9 changed iov_iter_get_pages prototype - KVM changes are intermodule dependencies commit 1ce7965547368129071e8b6715bf3e6c8c91a352 Author: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.de> Date: Thu May 28 16:40:12 2015 +0200 kabi: add kABI reference files - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVZzbsAAoJEB57S2MheeWyg70P/2WaB6EIdGK1w5NaNOPpdI9J 2sGGeAhq0XZLdt3kkJ32qgbrDBzuNyco6EnZT8mQMs7cNVZFbXv4lgNqcHK6ctHu ndzsG+OGx/jKv3rEgT8OY/J/u70d6g460DJLJA2pDjd1f1wW5XfF0O6QYQ3/zo8r D7HcGtrYa9zaosfbAnavSkEtZa3oCsXLOxI3SNbSOUkKLLkkaCXXWJg06PhLfcyt BNciVQ4hbePgDP0f9FDmLHNblhqg1Q3iuNExne1Suy+c9udC9j2GbUu2PZptcEmd tsi7DzlWd/uX3jTi1bkQZE6qZCS7CDOsF06E8ko5anqohzQB5VN0wasSDI2SJ3YW XcpX+nCTghA+CsMpUBNEsa84S2KtaoemHhvrL+zeoEi2hS2m34AzloJu8H8lOa+a KfKsuj6YirG63P8zQIxtzwPBW1q0jOag/oYLy07dSOAMDKDd0pejG8OwkELYjB3g Wezuj7GVyWaVm3PlfdXfWj1upE5z5E3D3TZ8S7tny09lw7ZODaKK6p0FajlC7q/C duQSaHhGktNIX22H4MGXiPVd7I7lGdcSUT3mxCUOBGpN24of5ssy3j3g7mhZkJiM 1g2qYtCeOi14+tY0tJMxEFWGUdSQ/GEBfJMZqf0kCuL1GLnYJVzRwDZUaayb7OXd CFm0/aEzDkkNDVN1D5yI =mq84 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
participants (6)
-
Andrei Borzenkov -
Jeff Mahoney -
Jiri Slaby -
Oliver Neukum -
Oliver Neukum -
Takashi Iwai