This is the listing of the open bugs that are relatively new, around

2.6.22 and up. They are vaguely classified by specific area.

(not a full list, there are more :)
The good part is that reporters of the bugs below are still around and

haven't dissipated, or disposed of their hardware, so it is a good

time to get the bugs.

Those bugzillas that have been started as regressions on Rafael's list

are not mentioned here so far, since they are being tracked as new

regressions already.
It would be appreciated if the corresponding maintenance team could take a

look, close off any which are fixed and see if they can fix any which aren't.
NOTE: when replying to this email, please add the bug number to the Subject in

the form [Bug 1234] so that bugzilla will capture the discussion.

Thanks.
ACPI====================================================================
System does not load without acpi=off ide=nodma noapic

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Kernel: 2.6.23.1
ACPI Error attaching device data

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9354

Kernel: 2.6.24-rc2
/proc/acpi/battery displays Incorrect voltages

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9341

Kernel: 2.6.23.1
PATA scan: ACPI Exception AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT... is beyond end of object

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9320

Kernel: 2.6.24-rc2

(Tejun: calling _GTF without calling _STM first.  _GTM doesn't have any

prerequisite (it can't).  Can someone familiar with ACPI tell me why the method

is failing?  At any rate, libata should work fine regardless of ACPI failures.

Maybe it's time to start blacklist to skip ATA-ACPI for some boards to avoid

those annoying messages during boot)
ACPI Battery Info in /sys but not /proc/acpi

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9183

Kernel: 2.6.23-rc8-mm2
When using ACPI on a Compaq Presario V6221EU the laptop goes into

deadlock after a random amount of time

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9118

Kernel: 2.6.23-rc6
ACPI video driver...
[ message continues ]

No response from developers
So I count around seven reports which people are doing something with and

twenty seven which have been just ignored.
Three of these reports have been identified as regressions.  All three

of those remain unresponded to.
-

Maybe I'm optimistic, but I expected Ingo/Thomas to look after nohz

problems. nohz=off highres=off fixes more than one suspend problem...
...stuff I've seen with NOHZ even without suspend (cursor blinking

irregulary) make me think that nohz perhaps should not be used in

production just yet...
							Pavel

--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

It appears that bug 9229 has been solved, and the reporter of that

bug now says that:
  If I unset NO_TZ suspend/resume works.

  If I set it suspend/resume doesn't works.
So I think this guy is now suffering from bug #9275
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

FWIW, I see the same problem with another HP notebook, DV4378EA with

radeon X700 video card. It does not happen frequently but I can say

that since I disabled the tickless feature I can't reproduce the

problem anymore.
-

Hi,
it is assigned to 'other_modules@kernel-bugs.osdl.org', so I didn't

notice, it's as simple as that.
--

Jiri Kosina

-

Bug was filled under IO/Storage-Other so is it assigned to

<other_other@kernel-bugs.osdl.org>.
Could be a FS problem as well but it is the best to wait for

confirmation with 2.6.23 before proceeding further...

-

..
Note:  that same bug exists/existed on i386 back when NO_HZ was

introduced (2.6.21?).  I still see it from time to time on my Quad core

system (very rare), but not any more on my Duo notebook where it used

to happen about 1 in n boots (n < 10).
..
I *still* get very slow resume-from-RAM quite often here

(new in 2.6.22 kernel, wasn't there in early 2.6.23-rc*).

Something eventually times out after a minute or so

and it comes back.  Cannot make it happen reliably,

unless I'm in a hurry to get something done.  :)

I suspect USB here, probably the same loopy bug that

we added a "loop limit failsafe" for back in 2.6.21(?).

-

Do you have a pointer to that please ?
Thanks,
	tglx

-

..
Just as it prints out these messages, sometimes one of them,

sometimes both (or all four on the quad core):
kernel: switched to high resolution mode on cpu 1

kernel: switched to high resolution mode on cpu 0 
-

It's completely dead afterwards ?
     tglx

-

Yeah.  No magic sysrq key or anything.

There's gotta be a race somewhere that's causing it,

but it's not obvious where to look for it.
My regular 2-core notebook no longer suffers from it,

and subtle .config changes used to make it come and go

back when it first appeared.
The quad-core has only done it twice on me thus far.
Tracking this one down looks tricky.  It might require some early lockup

detection code to be tailor made or something.
Cheers

-

..
The "limit" added in the code below,

which was for messages of this form:
    hub 1-1:1.0: hub_port_status failed (err = -71)

    last message repeated 347 times
I'm not yet sure what's happening on resume now,

but there's this huge long pause with a dark screen

and then suddenly the USB subsystem comes to life

(my mouse lights up) and the system finally resumes.
More when I know more.  But it doesn't happen every time,

or even most times, so git-bisect is not possible either.
This one actually requires a developer/maintainer to put

in some effort and think about things.  Currently, that's me.
-ml

-

Plus we've just merged a fix for NO_HZ on PXA platforms due to an utterly

broken one-shot implementation.  So chances are this problem is now fixed.
However, I object strongly to Andrew's responses to these bugs.  He's

completely out of line.
Given the wide range of ARM platforms today, it is utterly idiotic to

expect a single person to be able to provide responses for all ARM bugs.

I for one wish I'd never *VOLUNTEERED* to be a part of the kernel

bugzilla, and really *WISH* I could pull out of that function.
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

You can. Perhaps that bugzilla needs to point to some kind of

arm-maintainers@vger.kernel.org list for the various ARM platform

maintainers ?
Alan

-

That might work - though it would be hard to get all the platform

maintainers to be signed up to yet another mailing list, I'm sure

sufficient would do.
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

As long as it would just be bug reports, I'm sure that most of us

could be persuaded to subscribe. Adding another list for general

discussions is probably not going to be read, the current list

provides more than enough to keep us busy.
--

Ben
Q:      What's a light-year?

A:      One-third less calories than a regular year.
-

..
-

Just asked that :) Is there a chance to bisect that ?
Thanks,
	tglx

-

For christ sake Andrew.  Some of us are not employed to do kernel work

24h x 365days a year.  You might be, I'm not.
First thing, it's not a regression.  Second thing, it's *not* a bug.
uboot requires kernel images to be specially wrapped up in their crappy

formats before uboot will recognise it.  This means that if someone wants

to boot a binary image with uboot, they need to either:
1. work out the correct 'mkimage' command and run that program after

   the kernel build has completed.
2. sort out adding a new target to the kernel makefiles to run this

   uboot specific 'mkimage' command automatically.
And Alexandre (the original feature-missing reporter) has linked to a

message where a patch was proposed to do (2).  So obviously it's no
Bug was assigned to reporter, so I ignored it on the grounds that the

reporter was resolving it.  Plus, until recently I didn't have any

workable PXA systems to test stuff on.
In the end, a similar issue has been resolved anyway after a lot of

discussion on the ARM lists about how PXA should handle one-shot mode

with clockevents. It took absolutely ages to get agreement on what was

a simple patch.
commit 91bc51d8a10b00d8233dd5b6f07d7eb40828b87d

Author: Russell King <rmk@dyn-67.arm.linux.org.uk>

Date:   Thu Nov 8 23:35:46 2007 +0000
    [ARM] pxa: fix one-shot timer mode
    One-shot timer mode on PXA has various bugs which prevent kernels

    build with NO_HZ enabled booting.  They end up spinning on a

    permanently asserted timer interrupt because we don't properly

    clear it down - clearing the OIER bit does not stop the pending

    interrupt status.  Fix this in the set_mode handler as well.
    Moreover, the code which sets the next expiry point may race with

    the hardware, and we might not set the match register sufficiently

    in the future.  If we encounter that situation, return -ETIME so

    the generic time code retries.
    Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

    Acked-by: Nicola...
[ message continues ]

Actually, there has been a response (Eric asked in mailing list and

created a bug and got answer to the mailing list):

  As I read the bug it seems that the cause was a filesystem with errors

(which were in ACL's and thus kernel didn't boot only with ACL's

enabled) and fsck fixed the problem... I would close this one as

invalid (OK, I know the filesystem had to be corrupted somehow but

unless this is at least occasionally reproducible, there's low chance of

finding the bug).
								Honza
--

Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

SuSE CR Labs

-

Untrue. We've been discussing it on list in the past and its now on

bugzilla. Not obvious from outside I realise. That one I'm afraid is
Not sure who really owns parallel. Have grabbed and will sort

out.

-

On 13-11-2007 12:15, Andrew Morton wrote:
Looks like very reproducible!
Maybe you should add this to ...bugzilla?
Regards,

Jarek P.

-

Fixed (extended) in the DaveM's tree (or will be soon - patch was

submitted by Pierre Ynard).
Sorry, others are either driver related (and thus require

hardware to be tested on and maintainers to be kicked in)

or too obscure (like 2.6.11 bug and weird network problem

which is undetectible on other systems).
Yes, we suck, but we try to recover :)
--

	Evgeniy Polyakov

-

It's fixed and merged, I just forgot to close the bugzilla. Did so now.
--

Jens Axboe
-

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
That's funny, then how come there was a proper patch fix posted

and it's now in my tree ready to go to Linus?
I think you like just saying "No response from developers" over and

over again to make some of point about how developers are ignoring

lots of bugs.  That's fine, but at least be accurate about it :-)

-

Do you believe that our response to bug reports is adequate?

-

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Do you feel that making us feel and look like shit helps?
I guess I'm just masterbating here all night long with the 46

bug fixes I've reviewed fully and queued up into my tree.  Along

with all the 10 or so -stable submissions I did tonight as well.
When someone like me is bug fixing full time, I take massive offense

to the impression you're trying to give especially when it's directed

at the networking.
So turn it down a notch Andrew.
I bet if you did things like list explicitly by name every single

person who adds a bug fix (however trivial) to an -mm release instead

of a new feature, you'll better achieve your goal than what you're

doing here.

-

That doesn't answer my question.
See, first we need to work out whether we have a problem.  If we do this,

then we can then have a think about what to do about it.
I tried to convince the 2006 KS attendees that we have a problem and I

resoundingly failed.  People seemed to think that we're doing OK.
But it appears that data such as this contradicts that belief.
This is not a minor matter.  If the kernel _is_ slowly deteriorating then

this won't become readily apparent until it has been happening for a number

of years.  By that stage there will be so much work to do to get us back to

an acceptable level that it will take a huge effort.  And it will take a

long time after that for the kerel to get its reputation back.
So it is important that we catch deterioration *early* if it is happening.
-

yes, yes, yes, and i agree with you that there is a problem. I tried to

make this point at the 2007 KS: not only is degradation in quality not

apparent for years, slow degradation in quality can give kernel

developers the exact _opposite_ perception! (Fewer testers means fewer

bugreports and that results in apparent "improved" quality and fewer

reported regressions - while exactly the opposite is happening and

testers are leaving us without giving us any indication that this is

happening. We just dont notice.)
I'm not moaning about bugs that slip through - those are unavoidable

facts of a high flux codebase. I'm moaning about reoccuring, avoidable

bugs, i'm moaning about hostility towards testers, i'm moaning about

hostility towards automated testing, i'm moaning about unnecessary hoops

a willing (but unskilled) tester has to go through to help us out.
I tried to make the point that the only good approach is to remove our

current subjective bias from quality metrics and to at least realize

what a cavalier attitude we still have to QA. The moment we are able to

_measure_ how bad we are, kernel developers will adopt in a second and

will improve those metrics. Lets use more debug tools, both static and

dynamic ones. Lets measure tester base and we need to measure _lost_

early adopters and the reasons why they are lost. Regression metrics are

a very important first step too and i'm very happy about the increasing

effort that is being spent on this.
This is all QA-101 that _cannot be argued against on a rational basis_,

it's just that these sorts of things have been largely ignored for

years, in favor of the all-too-easy "open source means many eyeballs and

that is our QA" answer, which is a _good_ answer but by far not the most

intelligent answer! Today "many eyeballs" is simply not good enough and

nature (and other OS projects) will route us around if we dont change.
We kernel developers have been spoiled by years of abundance in testing

resources. We...
[ message continues ]

Ingo Molnar wrote:

..
QA-101 and "many eyeballs" are not at all in opposition.

The latter is how we find out about bugs on uncommon hardware,

and the former is what we need to track them and overall quality.
A HUGE problem I have with current "efforts", is that once someone

reports a bug, the onus seems to be 99% on the *reporter* to find

the exact line of code or commit.  Ghad what a repressive method.
And if the "developer" who broke the damn thing, or who at least

"claims" to be supporting that code, cannot "reproduce" the bug,

they drop it completely.
Contrast that flawed approach with how Linus does things..

he thinks through the symptoms, matches them to the code,

and figures out what the few possibilities might be,

and feeds back some trial balloon patches for the bug reporter to try.
MUCH better. 
Linus also asks for a git bisect, but doesn't insist upon the reporter

learning an entire new (poorly documented) toolset just to to report a bug.
Blah!
And remember, *I'm* an old-time Linux kernel developer.. just think about

the people reporting bugs who haven't been around here since 1992..
-ml

-

As a long time kernel tester, I see some problem with the

newer "new development model". In the short merge windows,

after to much time, there are to many patches.

So there are problem to bisect bugs, and to have attention

of developers. My impression is that in a week there are

many more messages in lkml and to much bugs to be

handled in these few days.
I've two proposal:
- better patch quality. I would like that every commit

would compile. So an automatic commit test and public

blames could increase the quality of first commits.

[bisecting with non compilable point it is not a trivial

task]
- a slow down the patch inclusion on the merge windows

(aka: not to much big changes in the first days).

As tester I prefer that some big changes would be

included in a "secondary window" (pre o rc release),

in an other period as the big patch rush.
ciao

	cate

-

I think the root issue there is that it's hard to get all testers to

run a bisect, but easy to ask them to test snapshots. Right now the

snapshots are generated nightly, but I think it would make more sense

if they were generated every N patches, for some value of N...
Of course, for that to really work, we have to ensure that the result

is always compilable, which has been getting better, but not perfect.
Ray

-

I don't see a point in doing that - that would be a more manual

bisecting, and the result would not be one guilty commit.
Testers are not expected to be able to hack a kernel, but it's

reasonable to expect testers to be able to build their own kernels

(and your proposal wouldn't change that).
The small instruction below is enough for everyone who is able to 
cu

Adrian
<--  snip  -->
# install git
# clone Linus' tree:

git clone \

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
# start bisecting:

cd linux-2.6

git bisect start

git bisect bad v2.6.21

git bisect good v2.6.20

cp /path/to/.config .
# start a round

make oldconfig

make

# install kernel, check whether it's good or bad, then:

git bisect [bad|good]

# start next round
After at about 10-15 reboots you'll have found the guilty commit

("...  is first bad commit").
More information on git bisecting:

  man git-bisect
-

I jump in this discussion hoping to have some more insight on git and to

report my experience as a tester. I consider myself as half-literate in

this (I am here since 1991, more or less, and I am able to compile a

kernel and even hand-apply a patch, although I am in no way a kernel

programmer). 
This was what I did in my (in the end almost successful) bisecting when

trying to find the mmc problem (see the thread named "2.6.24-rc1 eat my

SD card"). This is true in theory, but it has some problem. The "this

commit does not compile is the easiest and in man git-bisect it's

explained how to solve it. The changes in .config options, added or

removed, are another problem when jumping back and forth from version (I

was bitten by the gadzillions new options added to hda-intel alsa

driver, but well, that is solvable with a bit of attention).
The main problem I had, and that stopped me to arrive to a definite is

this situation:
j version-bad

i

h

g unrelated (but similar) bug corrected

f

e

d unrelated (but similar) bug introduced

c

b

a version-good 
(d was the series to change drivers to use sg helpers, and g was a "fix

fallout from sg helpers" patch). Now I have a series of kernels (d, e,

f) that did not work at all and so I cannot mark them good or bad. With

the number of patches added in the free-for-all week, this is a very

probable scenario. There is a way out from this using bisect?
Romano 
PS as a suggestion, I think that added a "Reported-by", or "Tested-by",

or "Debugged-by" attribution in the repository, as happened to be in the

MMC case, is a nice an d welcomed reward for the effort.    
--

Sorry for the disclaimer --- ¡I cannot stop it!
--

La presente comunicación tiene carácter confidencial y es para el exclusivo uso del destinatario indicado en la misma. Si Ud. no es el destinatario indicado, le informamos que cualquier forma de distribución, reproducción o uso de esta comunicación y/o de la información contenida en la misma están estrictame...
[ message continues ]

I think there are three strategies you can use in this case:

- create a kernel config that is as simple as possible, but still supports

  your hardware and reproduces your problem; a simpler config will often

  avoid compilation issues in parts of the kernel that you're not using

  anyway and has the benefit of speeding up the compiles too
- if you know/suspect in what part of the tree the bug is, first limit the

  bisection to that; you will have to verify that you did indeed find the

  correct (broken) change by doing a compile for the "last good commit + 1"
- if you find a broken commit, use 'git-reset --hard' to try to jump past

  the bad set of commits, but of course that does not help in the case:

    g version-bad

    f unrelated bug corrected

    e

    d the broken commit that caused your problem

    c

    b unrelated bug that breaks compilation or system introduced

    a version-good

  in that case the best you can reasonably be expected to do is report that

  you narrowed it down to "between a and g" and leave the rest to the

  developers
Cheers,

FJP

-

Btw, I used to test every -mm kernel. But since I've switched distros

(gentoo->ubuntu)

and I have less time, I feel it's harder to test -rc or -mm kernels (I

know this isn't a lkml problem

but more a distro problem, but I would love having an ubuntu blessed

repo with current dev kernel

for the latest stable ubuntu release).
For debugging, maybe it's time someone does an amazon ec2+s3 service

to automate the bisecting

and create .deb/.rpm from git, I don't know how much it would cost though.
regards,
Benoit

-

There are two parts to this.  One is a Ubuntu development kernel which

we can give to large numbers of people to expand our testing pool.

But if we don't do a better job of responding to bug reports that

would be generated by expanded testing this won't necessarily help us.
The other an automated set of standard pre-built bisection points so

that testers can more easily localize a bug down to a few hundred

commits without needing to learn how to use "git bisect" (think Ubuntu

users).
So for the first, I've actually been playing with some plans to put

together an unofficial kernel that basically "what Ted is using on his

laptop".  It generally has emergency bug fixes that haven't made it

into mainline, plus some other trees where I've been more aggressive

since I want to latest in wireless and powersaving technology, etc.

It has the property that "if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces

--- and I've helpfully included the git ID in the package name so you

can do the bisection yourself".  If you want to try it, the first such

kernel is here:
       http://www.kernel.org/~tytso/tbek
I wasn't planning on talking about it until it was more fully baked,

but if people want something vaguely stable based on 2.6.24-rc2, this

might be interesting.
As for the second, I was just talking to Arjan over pizza and beer

last night, and we reached the same conclusion as Ingo, which is this

really isn't that hard.  It wouldn't be that hard to set up

infrastructure to do this, and it's just a matter of getting the disk

space and the network bandwidth togehter in the right place, plus a

relatively small amount of prgramming at least for the simplest

iteration of the idea.  (As is quite common when doing designs over

beer, we talked about some more gradious web-based schemes to do

custom built kernels that was tied to the kernel bugzilla, but first

things first. :-)
						- Ted

-

I don't see any reason that we couldn't have a tool accessible to Ubuntu

users that does a real "git bisect". Git is really good at being scripted

by fancy GUIs. It should be easy enough to have a drop down with all of

the Ubuntu kernel package releases, where the user selects what works and

what doesn't. Then the tool clones a git repository with flags to only get

relevant parts, and then leads a bisect run, where it's also

configuring, building, and installing the kernels (as a different grub

entry), and providing instructions in general. Fundamentally, "git bisect"

is a really low-interaction process: you tell it a couple of commits, and

then it does stuff, and then you tell it "I tested, and it worked" or "I

tested, and it had the problem" or "Something else went wrong", and it

asks you something new. Other than that, it just takes time (and a build

system hook, which this tool would handle for the kernel). Eventually, it

tells you what to report, and you do so.
	-Daniel

*This .sig left intentionally blank*

-

It's possible users who haven't yet downloaded a git repository have

to surmount some obstacles that might cause them to lose interest.

First, they have to download some 190 megs of git repository, and if

they have a slow link, that can take a while, and then they have to

build each kernel, which can take a while.  A full kernel build with

everything selected can take good 30 minutes or more, and that's on a

fast dual-core machine with 4gigs of memory and 7200rpm disk drives.

On a slower, memory limited laptop, doing a single kernel build can

take more time than the user has patiences; multiply that by 7 or 8

build and test boots, and it starts to get tiresome.  
And then on top of that there are the issues about whether there is

enough support for dealing with hitting kernel revisions that fail due

to other bugs getting merged in during the -rc1 process, etc.
I agree that a tool that automated the bisection process and walked

the user through it would be helpful, but I believe it would be

possible for us do better.
						- Ted

-

It should be possible for it to clone only the portion that they actually

care about based on where the known-good version is. It should also (in

theory, anyway) be possible to put off some amount of the download until 
None of this is going to take as long, even on a slow link and a slow

computer, as waiting for a response to a mailing list post. It'd annoy

users who are specifically waiting for it, but if the interface is that

the user says "kernel package X didn't work but the current kernel does",

and it says "I'll let you know when I've got something to test", and the

user watches a DVD, and afterward finds a message saying there's something

to test, and tries it, and reports how it went, and the process repeats

until it narrows it down to a single commit after a couple of days of the

user getting occasional responses, it's not that different from asking for 
Could have a distro-provided mask of things that aren't worth testing and 
That would probably help for giving the user something to try right away.

I still think that the main cost to the user is the number of times that

the user has to stop doing stuff to reboot with a kernel to test, whether

the test kernels are available quickly from the distro site, slowly built

locally, or slowly as suggested by humans helping online.
	-Daniel

*This .sig left intentionally blank*

-

I'm very encouraged to read of your expanded testing efforts. As a bcm43xx developer, Ubuntu has

been our problem distro, mostly because your standard kernels have debugging turned off for bcm43xx.

When a Ubuntu user reports a problem and we ask for the relevant output from dmesg, they have no

information. I ask two things of all distros: (1) Turn on debugging - we don't spam the logs that

badly, and (2) forward any bugs found by your testing to the maintainer, and/or the bcm43xx mailing

list.
Thanks,
Larry
-

Heh. I hadn't enabled CONFIG_BCM43XX_DEBUG myself, but I just changed

it for my next kernel build.  This is a slightly different issue,

which is that sometimes _DEBUG options shouldn't be turned on by

default (because they really trash performance and bloat log size),

and sometimes they are painless to turn on and don't cost much.
If that is the case, I'd suggest removing the option and just making

it compiled in by default with a run-time option to enable it.
   	       	  	       	 	  - Ted
-

I am taking your suggestion and will produce the necessary patches for ssb, b43 and b43legacy. As

bcm43xx is likely to be removed from 2.6.25, which is the earliest such a non-bug fix patch would be

accepted, I hope that your future distribution and testing kernels will include the debug option.
Thanks,
Larry

-

The main problem aren't missing testers [1] - we already have relatively

experienced people testing kernels and/or reporting bugs, and we slowly

scare them away due to the many bug reports without any reaction.
The main problem is finding experienced developers who spend time on

looking into bug reports.
Getting many relatively unexperienced users (who need more guidance for

debugging issues) as additional testers is therefore IMHO not 
cu

Adrian
[1] and e.g. when Greg says he has a few hundred people who want to

    write drivers it would most likely be possible to find a few

    dozen additional -rc testers among them
-- 
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.

       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.

                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-

Won't work. You cannot force people to work on things they don't

find interesting, long-term.

--

vda

-

And where experienced developrs are coming from?

They are not born with Linux kernel skills.

They grow up from within user base.
Bigger user base -> more developers (eventually)

--

vda

-

You missed the following in my email:

"we slowly scare them away due to the many bug reports without any

 reaction."
The problem is that bug reports take time. If you go away from easy

things like compile errors then even things like describing what does

no longer work, ideally producing a scenario where you can reproduce it

and verifying whether it was present in previous kernels can easily take

many hours that are spent before the initial bug report.
If the bug report then gets ignored we discourage the person who sent 
cu

Adrian
-- 
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.

       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.

                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-

Cannot agree more. I am in a similar position right now.

My patch to aic7xxx driver was ubmitted four times

with not much reaction from scsi guys.
Finally they replied and asked to rediff it against their

git tree. I did that and sent patches back. No reply since then.
And mind you, the patch is not trying to do anything

complex, it mostly moves code around, removes 'inline',

adds 'const'. What should I think about it?

--

vda

-

this has nothing to do with the bugs on bugzilla.
you're trying to send a janitor patch. It should be logical that the response to

that is not heated or receiving a joyous reception :)
If you have a problem getting your cleanup patch to the driver maintainer, send it

to the subsystem maintainer instead, or even the janitors, or even Adrian Bunk who

will gladly push it to everyone. Or, even to Andrew Morton who will carry it in

-mm for a while and then harrasses the subsystem maintainer to merge it for you!
Cheers,
Auke

-

I'm waiting for an ACK/NAK from Hannes, the maintainer.  What should I

do?
--

Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine

"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this

operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such

a retrograde step."

-

I haven't actually been able to test it here (too busy, sorry). If someone

else confirms it does it's job then
Acked-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cheers,
Hannes

--

Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage

hare@suse.de			      +49 911 74053 688

SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg

GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)

-

Before that you want a flowchart or instruction list of boot options to

try. A lot of errors can be localised simply by asking the reported to

boot with things like "iommu=off", "pci=routeirq", "apci=off" etc
That takes a lot less time to run through and can be very informative.
Alan

-

a few months ago i estimated the costs of this and it's just a few

terabytes so within arm's reach. As long as the .deb/.rpm's are built by

tracking -git in a rolling fashion CPU time should not be a big issue.

The only limit is download bandwidth - but even that problem might be

solvable via a huge git repository of ready-to-boot .o's that are linked

together on the tester's machine.
	Ingo

-

99% on the reporter?  Is that why I always try to understand the

reporters problem (*provided* it's in an area I know about) and come

up with a patch to test a theory or fix the issue?
I'm _less_ inclined to provide such a "service" for lazy maintainers

who've moved off into new and wonderfully exciting technologies, to

churn out more patches for me to merge (and eventually provide a free

to them bug fixing service for.)
That's "less" inclined, not "won't".
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

..
Same here.
I just find it weird that something can be known broken for several -rc*

kernels before I happen to install it, discover it's broken on my own machine,

and then I track it down, fix it, and submit the patch, generally all within a

couple of hours.  Where the heck was the dude(ess) that broke it ??  AWOL.
And when I receive hostility from the "maintainers" of said code for fixing
-

Same thing can be said for compile breakages as well.  Looking at the

latest kautobuild output:
ARM ep93xx defconfig has been broken since 2.6.23-git1 due to:
drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c:420: error: implicit declaration of function '__netif_rx_schedule_prep'
caused by: [NET]: Make NAPI polling independent of struct net_device objects.
ARM netx defconfig has been broken since 2.6.23-git1 due to:
drivers/net/netx-eth.c: In function 'netx_eth_hard_start_xmit':

drivers/net/netx-eth.c:131: error: 'dev' undeclared (first use in this function)

drivers/net/netx-eth.c:131: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once

drivers/net/netx-eth.c:131: error: for each function it appears in.)

drivers/net/netx-eth.c: In function 'netx_eth_receive':

drivers/net/netx-eth.c:158: error: 'dev' undeclared (first use in this function)
caused by: [NET] drivers/net: statistics cleanup #1 -- save memory and shrink code
Haven't got a report for either of those, but Kautobuild lets people

know if folk can be bothered to subscribe to its mailing list and/or

look at the site occasionally.
I suspect the maintainers of the above drivers aren't aware that their

drivers are broken.
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
I'll fix these up, thanks for the report.

-

Given a decent bug report, I agree that having the bug not looked at is

shameful.  But what can a developer do if a bug report effectively reads

"there is some bug somewhere in recent kernels"?  How can I know that in

this particular case it is my bug that I introduced?  It could just as

easily be 50 other people and none of them are eager to debug it unless

they suspect it to be their bug.
This is a common problem and fairly unrelated to linux in general or the

kernel in particular.  Who is going to be the sucker that figures out

which developer the bug belongs to?  And I have yet to find a project,

commercial or opensource, where volunteers flock to become such a

sucker.
One option is to push this role to the bug reporter.  Another is to

strong-arm some developers into this role, by whatever means.  A third

would be for $LARGE_COMPANY to hire some people.  If you have a better

idea or would volunteer your time, I'd be grateful.  Simply blaming one

side, whether bug reporter or a random developer, for not being the

sucker doesn't help anyone.
Jörn
--

Joern's library part 2:

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/tirix/embarrassing-memo.html

-

..
Most of the regressions we have are easily identifiable and not of the type

where there could "50 other people" touching the relevant code.  As a developer

(and former subsystem maintainer) I look hard at my own code when there's a

bug reported that could have come from recent updates there.  Usually there are

not that many updates to consider, and tracking it down is just a matter of

being willing to do so.
Of late, I've given up on other developers fixing the stuff they break on my

own machines, and I generally just dive into totally unfamiliar code, and find

and fix it myself.  Quite quickly, usually.  And the bugs are often very apparent

just from looking at the source code diffs (patches) from recent history in

the code that's not working.  This is not rocket science, and it doesn't require

a log2 download/rebuild/reboot process.
But yes, there are more difficult ones, like when my machine crashed yesterday

with some form of corruption showing up during JBD filesystem I/O.  That's one

where the problem isn't going to be obvious to anyone, and I don't actually

expect anyone to go looking for it right away.  If more such events happen,

then it will get more attention.
But things like broken drivers, in almost every case those are trivial

..
Nobody's blaming anyone here.  I'm just asking that developers here do more

like our Top Penguin does, and actually look at problems and try to understand

them and suggest fixes to try.  And not rely solely on the git-bisect crutch.

It's a good crutch, provided the reporter is a kernel developer, or has a lot

of time on their hands.  But we debugged Linux here for a long time without it.
And I already volunteer my time here, thanks, BIG TIME, since 1992 or so.
Cheers
-

It's relatively common that a regression in subsystem A will manifest as a

failure in subsystem B, and the report initially lands on the desk of the

subsystem B developers.
But that's OK.  The subsystem B people are the ones with the expertise to

be able to work out where the bug resides and to help the subsystem A

people understand what went wrong.
Alas, sometimes the B people will just roll eyes and do nothing because

they know the problem wasn't in their code.  Sometimes.

-

And sometimes the A people will ignore the B people after the root cause

has been worked out.  Do you have a good idea how to shame A into

action?  Should I put you on Cc:?  Right now I'm in the eye-rolling

phase.
Jörn
--

The cost of changing business rules is much more expensive for software

than for a secretaty.

-- unknown

-

Well, that's the problem, isn't it?
The best I can come up with is to suggest that all the info be captured in

a bugzilla report so that at least it doesn't get forgotten about.
I suppose that other options are
a) try to fix it yourself.  I'll take the patch and as long as we make a

   big enough mess of it, someone who knows what they're doing might fix it

   for real.
b) If it was a regression, identify the offending commit and we'll just

   revert it.

-

This is the only method that scales.
Developer has only 24 hours in each day, and sometimes he needs to eat,

sleep, and maybe even pay attention to e.g. his kids.
But bug reporters are much more numerous and they have more

hours in one day combined.
BUT - it means that developers should try to increase user base,
Developer should let reporter know that reporter needs to help

a bit here. Sometimes a bit of hand holding is needed, but it
Yes. Developers should not grow more and more unhelpful

and arrogant towards their users just because inexperienced

users send incomplete/poorly written bug reports.

They need to provide help, not humiliate/ignore.
I think we agree here.

--

vda

-

yes, absolutely so - that's why i used the "good" qualifier. "Good is

not good enough" calls for additional efforts to make it more efficient,

not for the abolition of the many eyeballs concept (which would be

absurd). So what i wanted to say is that _sole_ reliance on the large

numbers of eyeballs is a fundamental mistake. It's even sometimes used

as an excuse to merge questionable stuff. "we'll find any bugs, many

eyeballs will make bugs shallow". In reality the many eyeballs are not

infinite, nor should they be taken for granted if they are used for

bogus things. We have to make sure the eyeballs stay 'many', and we also

have to make sure they are not wasted. It's a physical resource that

must be intelligently handled. Its positive effects can be easily wasted

and we do that today.
for example git-bisect was godsent. I remember that years ago bisection

of a bug was a very laborous task so that it was only used as a final,

last-ditch approach for really nasty bugs. Today we can autonomouly

bisect build bugs via a simple shell command around "git-bisect run",

without any human interaction! This freed up testing resources

enormously and made bisection one of the _first_ things that are tried

when bugs are met. We just need more of this (distros should offer

pre-built kernel rpm 'farms' for every important commit point and

automated tools for users to easily specify breakage points, without

them having to install those kernels individually) , and everyone should

be aware of the fact that we still suck (we merge too much crap and

still dont have good enough tools to de-crappify what we merge) and that

we are losing testers.
	Ingo

-

..
It's only a godsend for the few people who happen to be kernel developers

and who happen to already use git.
It's a 540MByte download over a slow link for everyone else.
-ml

-

Hmmm, clean-cg is 7.7G on my machine, and yes I tried

git-prune-packed. What am I doing wrong?

						Pavel

--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

"git-repack -a -d" gives me ~220 MB:
  $ du -s .git

  222064  .git
anyone who can download a 43 MB tar.bz2 tarball for a kernel release

should be able to afford a _one time_ download size of 250 MB (the size

of the current kernel.org git repository). If not, burning a CD or DVD

and carrying it home ought to do the trick. Git is very

bandwidth-efficient after that point - lots of people behind narrow

pipes are using it - it's just the initial clone that takes time. And

given all the history and metadata that the git repository carries (full

changelogs, annotations, etc.) it's a no-brainer that kernel developers

should be using it.
(and you can shrink the 250 MB further down by using shallow clones,

etc.)
yes, some people complained when distros stopped doing floppy installs.

Some people complained when distros stopped doing CD installs. Yes, i've

myself done a 250+ MB download over a 56 kbit modem in the past, and

while it indeed took overnight to finish, it's very much doable. It's

not really qualitatively different from the 1.5 hours a kernel tar.bz2

took to download.
	Ingo

-

Probably that once in a while, we should set up a complete tree in a

tar.bz2 format on kernel.org. It would help a lot of people behind small

pipes. I have been encountering problems with git-clone when the link is

unstable. After the smallest error, it erases everything and you have to

retry from start, which is quite frustrating and expensive.
At least, downloading a tar.bz2 with FTP would be easier and a lot more

reliable. Also, people could download it from their workplace and bring

it home.
Willy
-

clean-cg? But failure to run "git repack -a -d" every once in a while?
Rene.

-

Actually, the best command is 
git gc
which does a repack (into a single pack file rather than an incremenal),

and then removes all the objects now in the pack.  If, like me, you work

on temporary branches which you keep rebasing, you can add a --prune to

gc which will erase all unreferenced objects as it packs (use this one

with care.  I usually never use it but run a git prune -n just to see

what would be removed, and then run git prune separately if it looks

OK).
James
-

Thanks for the comment. That managed to indeed shave a few extra bytes off

my already "repack -a -d" packed repo still.
Rene.
-

Where do you get this number from?

$ du -sh .git/objects/pack/

249M    .git/objects/pack/

$ du -sh .git/objects/

253M    .git/objects/
ie about half what you claim.
--

Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine

"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this

operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such

a retrograde step."

-

..
No, it's from earlier in this very thread:
..
mkdir t

cd t

git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git

(wait half an hour)

/usr/bin/du -s linux-2.6

522732  linux-2.6
-

You're assuming that everything in linux-2.6 was downloaded; that's

not true.  Everything in linux-2.6/.git was downloaded; but then you do a

checkout which happens to approximately double the size of the linux-2.6

directory.  If you do git-clone -n, you'll get a closer estimate to the

size of the download.
I suppose git-clone should grow a -v option that it could pass to rsync

to let us find out how many bytes are actually transferred, but i'm

happy to go with 250MB as a close estimate to the amount of data to xfer.
When you compare it to the 60MB tarballs that are published, it's really

not that bad.
--

Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine

"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this

operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such

a retrograde step."

-

..
Ah, I wondered why it took only half an hour to download.
..
The tarballs I download are only 45MB.
Cheers
-

and you can get even lower than the 260MB by downloading a shallow clone

of v2.6.23 and then populating the git tree from tht point on. (see the

--depth parameter of git-clone) [because most of the time you want to

bisect back to the last stable release, not back to 2 years of git

history.]
	Ingo
-

When creating additional git trees (Linville's wireless-2.6 tree, for example) for driver

development, you can save a lot of download bandwidth by using the --reference parameter of git-clone.
Larry

-

You clone the git repo once.  Afterwards, you only update it and that usually

doesn't take that much time and a little effort.
Greetings,

Rafael

-

It's also godsend for users who want a regression they observe fixed.
If you can tell which patch broke it you often turned a very hard to

debug problem into a relatively easy fixable problem.
As an example, [1] was an issue a normal user could discover, and

bisecting made the difference between "nearly undebuggable" and
As already said in thread, the required instructions for bisecting are

relatively short and simple (assuming the user can build his own 
Not everyone has a slow connection.
For me, the speed of cloning a tree from git.kernel.org is completely

cpu bound and limited by the speed of the 1.8 Ghz Athlon in my

computer...
But if there is a real life problem like people with extremely slow and

expensive internet connections not being able to bisect bugs these 
cu

Adrian
[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/12/154
-- 
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.

       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.

                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-

..
Oh yes, definitely.  When that use happens to be a kernel dev + git user,

it saves the *fool who broke it* a hell of a lot of time, because they can

slough it off onto the poor bloke who notices it.
Mind you, no arguing that this is effective when that poor bloke

has a day free to download the git-tree and build/reboot a dozen times.

-

"fool who broke it" are hard works. Bugs are part of software

development, so you'd have to name everyone who develops software

a fool.
But the main point is that often you don't know who broke it until you 
I did bisecting myself, and I know that it costs time and work.
But the first point is the above one that it makes otherwise nearly

undebuggable problems debuggable and fixable.
Another point is that it shifts the work from the few experienced

developers to the many users. Users (and voluntary testers) we have

many, but developer time for debugging bug reports is a quite scarce

resource.
And why "poor bloke"? Bisecting takes time, but that's not different

from e.g. writing code or cleaning up code or going through bug reports.
cu

Adrian
-- 
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.

       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.

                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-

Adrian Bunk wrote:

..
Definitely useful, no question.
But the problem is now that kernel devs are addicted to it,

many won't even consider resolving a problem any other way.
That's not "maintaining" (or supporting) one's code.
And when a "maintainer" is too busy to find/fix their own bugs,

that could be a sign that they've bitten off too big of a chunk

of the kernel, and it's time for them to distribute code maintainership.
Cheers

-

What you replaced with two dots contained the answer to this:
Another point is that it shifts the work from the few experienced

developers to the many users. Users (and voluntary testers) we have

many, but developer time for debugging bug reports is a quite scarce 
The problem is: Maintainers don't grow on trees.
You need people who are both technically capable and willing to spend

time on the non-sexy task of debugging problems.
Where do you plan to find them?
If you don't believe me, please find a maintainer for the currently

unmaintained parallel port support.
cu

Adrian
-- 
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.

       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.

                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-

..
Hey, if somebody has time to break things, then they damn well ought

to be able to make time to fix them again.  And the best developers

here on LKML do just that (fix what they break).
You broke it, you fix it.  A simple rule.
Translation for the particularly daft:
If you've been making significant updates to a driver/subsystem,

and people are reporting that it is now broken for them,

then it's your job to make it right.  The reporters can help,

and many may even git-bisect or send patches.  
But you cannot *expect* or *insist* upon them doing your job.
-

What are "significant updates"?
Sometimes one person makes one small patch and this patch contains
We have some open drivers/ata/ regressions.
I see some person named "Mark Lord" being responsible for 4 commits.
What pubishment do you plan for him if 2.6.24 ships with any libata

regressions?
Let George W. Bush wrongly accuse him of possessing weapons of 
Bullshit.
Bug fixing is not about finding someone to blame, it's about getting the

bug fixed.
The bug reporter is the person who can reproduce the problem, and if

it's a regression then bisecting is the natural way of getting nearer

at getting it fixed.
cu

Adrian
-- 
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.

       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.

                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-

..
Then that person should double check their changes against

the problems reported, and re-convince themselves that the

..
Yup, but they're more specific than just that entire subsystem,

and the maintainers are actively pursuing the problems.

..
If the code I'm touching breaks, then I'll fix it ASAP,

..
It's not about blame, it's about paying attention to breakages in code that a

person claims to be supporting, and then doing their best to resolve the issues.
Again, if one has the time to actively write/modify code such that something breaks,

..

For the third time, no disagreement here.  git-bsect can help in many cases,

but not in all cases.  And it requires a great time commitment from somebody

who's system used to work and now doesn't work.  The person who broke it has

a fair bit of responsibility there, too.
cheers

-

Simple?
Everything you have in mind with "should double check their changes" is

simply not realistic with dozens of known unfixed regressions within

more than half a million changed or new lines of code written by more 
Maintainers are just humans with limited time. 
You were the one who suggested to "distribute code maintainership", 
code writer != subsystem maintainer
git-bisect can help only for regressions, and it can help for most

regressions.
And you shouldn't try to make a problem out of something that isn't a

problem:
Bug submitters are either volunteers who test -rc or even -git or -mm

kernels for finding bugs or people who want a problem they experience

fixed.
In both cases the submitters are usually willing to invest some time for 
cu

Adrian
--
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.

       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.

                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-

Partly - its also about understanding why the bug occurred and making it

not happen again.

-

Very few people think about that part.

-

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:52:17 -0500
Why does the kernel have very few useful tests?

 Lack of interest? resources? expertise?

Ideally each new feature would just be a small add on to an existing test.
Unlike developing new features which seems to grow well with more developers.

Bug fixing also seems to be a scarcity process. There often seems to be

a very few people that understand the problem well enough or have the necessary

hardware to reproduce and fix the problem.
Recent changes like tickless and scheduler rework were well thought out and caused

very little impact to 90% of the users. The problem is the 10% who do have problems.

Worse, the developers often only hear about the a small sample of those.
--

Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>

-

Tests would of course be nice, but they aren't very useful(!)
Looking at this list which Natalie has generated I see around thirty which

are dependent on the right hardware and ten which are not.  This ratio is

typical, I think.  In fact I'd say that more than 75% of reported bugs are

dependent on hardware.
So the best test of all for the kernel is "run it on a different machine".

This is why we are sooooo dependent upon our volunteer testers/reporters to
Sure.  For system-call-visible features it would be good to do that.
But this tends not to be where bugs get exposed.  Because the original

developer can 100% exercise such code.  That isn't the case with
We're 100% dead if "having the hardware" is a prerequisite to fixing a bug.

The terminal state there is that the kernel runs on about 200 machines

worldwide.  We have to work with reporters via email to fix these sorts of
Yes.  An unknown number of people just shrug and go back to an old kernel.
-

..
And that's simply not good enough.
-

There is this silly limit that noone can work more than 168 hours per

week on the Linux kernel, and some kernel developers seem to take the

liberty of spending even less time on kernel development...
Considering our problems to cope with the amount of incoming bug

reports, everything that would require a kernel developer to spend more

time for getting a bug fixed would be a horrible mistake.
cu

Adrian
-- 
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.

       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.

                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-

That limit of 168 hours applies all around the world to everyone.

Moreover, not all kernel developers are employed to hack on the

kernel for 168 hours a week.
For me, personally, that figure is in reality about 24 hours a

week.  Yes, just 24.  The rest of the time (like *now*) is time I'm

volunteering because I happen to be reading my email...
... and happen to be wasting replying to discussions like this rather

than reading that message which has just arrived on the ARM kernel

mailing list from someone having problems using copy_from_user()

with a kernel pointer.
So, please, stop this idea that somehow kernel developers can

somehow spend infinite amounts of time solving lots and lots of

bugs.
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

Sorry, that happens when using irony in a non-native language...
What I wanted to express:
cu

Adrian
-- 
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.

       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.

                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-

From: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>
Like the internet, this time spent is beneficial because it's

pushing the work out to the end nodes.  In fact git bisect is

an awesome example of the end node principle in action for

software development and QA.
For the end-user wanting their bug fixed and the developer it's a win

win situation because the reporter is actually able to do something

proactive which will help get the bug they want fixed faster.
So I don't agree with framing this person as a "poor bloke".  Our

testers are more empowered than ever to lead the process towards a

fix.

-

Oh, common. Leeching CDs is so yesterday. These days some distributions

don't even offer CDs anymore in favour of DVDs.
I'd be amazed if a lot of the testers would still be on slownet, its

impossible to keep up with the latest distros without broadband.
-

but here I disagree.  LKML is already too busy and noisy.

Major subsystems need their own discussion areas.
---

~Randy

-

That's a stupid argument. We lose much more by forced isolation of

discussion than what we win by having less traffic! It's _MUCH_ easier

to narrow down information (by filter by threads, by topics, by people,

etc.) than it is to gobble information together from various fractured

sources. We learned it _again and again_ that isolation of kernel

discussions causes bad things.
In fact this thread is the very example: David points out that on netdev

some of those bugs were already discussed and resolved. Had it been all

on lkml we'd all be aware of it.
this is a single kernel project that is released together as one

codebase, so a central place of discussion is obvious and common-sense.
so please stop this "too busy and too noisy" nonsense already. It was

nonsense 10 years ago and it's nonsense today. In 10 years the kernel

grew from a 1 million lines codebase to an 8 million lines codebase, so

what? Deal with it and be intelligent about filtering your information

influx instead of imposing a hard pre-filtering criteria that restricts

intelligent processing of information.
	Ingo

-

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
That's a rediculious argument.
One other reason these bugs are resolved, is that the networking

developers only need to subscribe to netdev and not have to listen to

all the noise on lkml.
People who want to manage bugs know what list to look on and

contact about problems.
Dumping even more crap on lkml is not the answer.

-

what noise? If someone really wants networking discussions only, use

this procmail rule:
  :0 HBc

          * .*net: *

          sched-patches
to separate it into an extra folder and use "net: " as an agreed upon

Subject line if you really want to narrow things down. (But there would

still be all the other mail just in case the developer has to look at

the wider picture. There would be no "I'm only subscribed to netdev"

excuse. )
but there should still be one central repository for all kernel

discussions - just like there is one central repository for all kernel 
i think that's the problem. Developers (and here i dont mean you) who

want to do "development only", without being exposed to the global state

of the kernel and without being exposed to bugs. I think that's the

basic mindset difference. That is one of the factor that is causing

assymetric allocation of developers and the increasing detachment from
that "crap" that i'd like to see dumped upon lkml would be netdev

traffic mainly - most of the other kernel development lists (and i'm

subscribed to many of them) are low-traffic. netdev is the main reason

why we cannot do a "one common discussion forum" approach.
	Ingo

-

hmm, how much work would it be to tweak the mail software on vger to have

a linux-all@vger.kernel.org that got a copy of any linux-* list hosted by

vger.
this would solve half the problem (people on linux-kernel not seeing

discussions on the other lists)
David Lang

-

I agree totally with David, and this goes for SCSI too.  If it's not

reported on linux-scsi, there's a significant chance of us missing the

bug report.  The fact that some people notice bugs go past on LKML and

forward them to linux-scsi is a happy accident and not necessarily

something to rely on.
LKML has 10-20x the traffic of linux-scsi and a much smaller signal to

noise ratio.  Having a specialist list where all the experts in the

field hangs out actually enhances our ability to fix bugs.
James
-

you are actually proving my point. People have to scan lkml for SCSI

regressions _anyway_, because otherwise _you_ would miss them. In the

case a user is fortunate enough to realize that a regression is SCSI

related, and he is lucky enough to pre-select the SCSI mailing list in

the first go, he might get a fix from you. That already reduces the

number of useful bugreports by about an order of magnitude.
	Ingo

-

So you have a preferred method of handling email.  Please don't

force it on the rest of us.
I'll plan to use lkml-list-only when you have convinced DaveM to drop

all of the other mailing lists at vger.kernel.org.  Yeah, sure.
---

~Randy

-

countered by the underlined sentences above, just in case you missed it.
	Ingo

-

I didn't miss your claim.
---

~Randy

-

ok, then you conceded it by not replying to it? good ;-)
	Ingo

-

No, I don't intend to carry on this discussion,

but I appreciate the smiley.
---

~Randy

-

I'd be curious for any pointers on tools, actually.  I "read" (ok, skim)

lkml but still overlook relevant bug reports occasionally.

(Fortunately, between Trond and Andrew and others forwarding things it's

not actually a problem, but I'm still curious).
--b.

-

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
You tell me what I should spend my time working on, and I promise to

do it OK? :-)
For example, if I have a choice between a TCP crash just about anyone

can hit and some obscure issue only reported with some device nearly

nobody has, which one should I analyze and work on?
That's the problem.  All of us prioritize and it means the chaff

collects at the bottom.  You cannot fix that except by getting more

bug fixers so that the chaff pile has a chance to get smaller.
Luckily if the report being ignored isn't chaff, it will show up again

(and again and again) and this triggers a reprioritization because not

only is the bug no longer chaff, it also now got a lot of information

tagged to it so it's a double worthwhile investment to work on the

problem.
I think a lot of bugs that "aren't getting looked at" are simply

sitting in some early stage of this process.

-

Strongly agree.
This is exactly what happened to that ARM NO_HZ bug report.  The report

in bugzilla was rather lacking (and wrong) in ways that have already

been described.  HPET on ARM? 8)
Then on the morning of 6th November, someone reported on the mailing list

that "pxa270 doesn't work with oneshot timer" and that was the trigger to

getting the bug resolved - because it was a narrowly defined bug report.
Since it was a narrowly defined bug report, it became very easy to

investigate and resolve.  About half an hour of time for an initial

patch.
There's another issue I want to raise concerning bugzilla.  We have the

classic case of "not enough people reading bugzilla bugs" - which is one

of the biggest problems with bugzilla.  Virtually no one in the ARM

community looks for ARM bugs in bugzilla.
Let's not forget that it would be a waste of time for people to manually

check bugzilla for ARM bugs.  There's soo few people reporting ARM bugs

into bugzilla that a weekly manual check by every maintainer would just

return the same old boring results for months and months at a time.
It would be far more productive if the ARM category was deleted from

bugzilla and the few people who use bugzilla reported their bugs on the

mailing list.  We've a couple of thousand people on the ARM kernel

mailing list at the moment - that's 3 orders of magnitude more of eyes

than look at bugzilla.
(I'm not saying that if the ARM NO_HZ bug as reported in bugzilla had

been reported on the correct mailing list would've been solved earlier;

I doubt there'd be much difference.  However, the probability of a

question being asked of the reporter would've been much higher, and

_that_ might have led to an earlier resolution.)
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

What about having all ARM bugs in Bugzilla by default assigned to 
cu

Adrian
[1] Either directly or through a pseudo address, but that's just a

    technical detail.
-- 
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.

       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.

                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-

That would also work, probably much better than setting up yet another

list.
My experience of trying to get mbligh to do this when I stopped looking

after PCMCIA stuff was *extremely* painful.  Wonder if it's become any

easier of late?
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

I screen all bugzilla reports.  100% of them.
- I'll try to establish whether it is a regression
- I'll solicit any extra information which I believe the reveloper will need
- I'll ensure that an appropriate developer has seen the report
Is that linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk?
If so, MANITAINERS claims that it is subscribers-only.  That would cause

some bug reporters to give up and go away.

-

that just because you do this everyone in a select clique, who you include

me in, should be doing this as well.
Find some other mailing list; I'm not hosting *nor* am I willing to run a

non-subscribers only mailing list.  Period.  Not negotiable, so don't even

try to change my mind.
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

The postmasters at vger is pretty good at running mailing lists.

For linux-kbuild my effort so far has been to request it.

Thats not a big deal.
So if they accept it you could have linux-arm@vger.kernel.org for zero

overhead for you.
	Sam

-

And in a later mail I saw davem already created it.
	Sam

-

From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
I already did, get a little deeper in your mailbox before

replying :-)

-

No, I don't mean that at all and this was very plainly obviously from my very

clearly written email.  Let me try again.
No, no subsystem developer needs to monitor new bugzilla reports.  This is

because *I do it for them*.  I will actively make them aware of new reports

which I believe are legitimate and which contain sufficient information for
Making a list subscribers-only will cause some bug reports to be lost.
Tradeoffs are involved, against which decisions must be made.  You have

made yours.
-

If you screen all bugzilla reports then you'll know that bug #9356 arrived

at about 1400 GMT yesterday.  It's hardly surprising then that your utterly

crappy responses to Natalie's message (which, incidentally, wasn't copied
On the whole you do an excellent job with feeding the bug reports to

people, and while I recognise that you're only human, things do

occasionally go wrong.  For instance, sending clearly marked Samsung

S3C bugs to me rather than Ben Dooks (who's in MAINTAINERS for those
So how are they lost when they're held in a moderation queue and are

either accepted, a useful response given to the original poster, or

are forwarded to someone who can deal with the issue.
I don't think "subscribers only" describes my lists - we don't devnull

stuff just because the poster is not a subscriber.
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

Well whatever, sorry.  But this is in the noise floor.  Point is: many bug
Oh, OK, as long as there really is a human paying attention to those things

then that's fine.  When one is on the sending end of these things one never

knows how long it will take, not whether it will even happen.
-

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Russell doesn't have to worry any more, he doesn't have to

host it, and he doesn't have to be willing to run a

non-subscribers-only mailing list.
Because I am.
I've created linux-arm@vger.kernel.org
Enjoy.

-

By doing so you've just said (implicitly) that you can not tolerate

someone having a different opinion from your own.
While I accept *your* right to run *your* lists how you please, you

are unable to accept *my* right to run *my* lists how I see fit.
Time will tell which lists will survive.  Whatever, I suspect that by

doing what you've just done, you're going to create more confusion and

problems. Instead of having one focused place for discussions and bug

reports, they're going to be spread more thinly, meaning less people

looking at such things, meaning more bugs get ignored.  Thus making

the issue worse.
So, when are you creating a replacement alsa-devel mailing list on

vger?  That's also subscribers-only.
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
I created a mailing list on a machine where I provide such services.
I didn't tell you to take your list down or to run it in some other

way.  I didn't tell you to unsubscribe everyone and move them over

to the new list either.
I've provided an alternative, and people can pick and choose how they

see fit.  I'm letting natural selection run it's course.  Are you

able to cope with the fact that people might not want to use your

list any longer?  Perhaps that is what bugs you so much about my
The operative term is "alternative" rather than "replacement".

Perhaps this misunderstanding is what you're so upset about.
And yes, that alsa list bugs the crap out of me too.  I'm more than

happy to provide an alternative for that one as well.
In fact, *poof*, there it is, linux-alsa@vger.kernel.org is there and

available for anyone who wants to use it.
Have a nice day Russell.

-

Absolutely, and if you'd have read my message you'd have seen that

I'd said effectively the same thing that you're saying here.
Having been flamed for not reading emails properly by AKPM shall

I flame you for not reading my emails properly?  Oh no, it's merely

human to occasionally have such misunderstandings.  Unless you're

rmk.
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

On 14-11-07 11:07, David Miller wrote:
alsa-devel@alsa-project.org is not subscriber-only. Same as that arm list,

it's _moderated_ for non-subscribers and given that I and other moderators

have been doing our best to moderate quickly (I tend to stay logged in to

the moderation interface all day for example) what specifically bugged the

crap out of you? It's not something a poster needs to concern himself with.
Also for alsa-devel the moderators tend to add any valid non-subcribers to

a whitelist after landing in the queue the first time meaning even a delay

is just a one-time thing normally. So what's the trouble? Basically, noone 
Not that I think that moving alsa-devel over to vger wouldn't be a good idea

mind you; when the list moved from sourceforge, asking you to host it was my

preferred option. I do somewhat suspect that Jaroslav would like to keep the

alsa-devel@ name (and I'd like to ask you to then also host alsa-user@) and

would then rewrite mail to those lists @alsa-project.org to vger.
But what is the problem you speak of with the alsa-devel list? While I would

not mind loosing it, moderation hasn't been overly laborious and I'm not

aware of any serious problems.
Rene.
-

Totally unrelated - I sent something to the kolab mailing list a couple

of days ago (it's moderated for non subscribers) informing them that I

had found the cause of some Cyrus bugs that they had problems with in

the past and providing a link to my post to the cyrus list with the

patches attached.
It sat in the moderation queue and then was rejected with "non

subscriber post to subscription only list".  Not only was the reponse a

day later when I had moved on to other things, but it got me really

pissed off that I had put some effort into providing a good quality post

that outlined the specific issues and how they applied to their project,

and had been summarily dismissed, probably without the effort being put

in.
There's no way for a non-subscriber to know in advance if the list they

are trying to post to will do that to them, completely negating the

effort put in to writing something worthwhile to inform that community.

It's insular, and it sucks.
So yeah, my attitude now is that the Kolab folks can go screw themselves

and track down the fix on their own or wait until I've convinced

upstream to accept the fixes (likely) and they have moved to the new

version (unlikely for a long time, and meanwhile they're missing out on

the performance increases that having a more stable skiplist library

would give them)
I'm sure if I had something that I considered worth informing the ALSA

project of, I'd be wary of spending the same effort writing a good

post knowing it may be dropped in between the by a list moderator just

selecing all and bouncing them.
Bron.

-

Totally unrelated indeed so why are spouting crap? If the kohab list has a

problem take it up with them but keep ALSA out of it. alsa-devel has only

ever moderated out spam -- nothing else.
ene

-

That is incorrect.  Hopefully it is the case now though, since my

experience of the subject was years ago.
  OG.

-

At Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:17:27 +0100,
Yeah, it was really years ago that we once switched to the open list.

Funny that people never forget such a thing :)
Takashi

-

As an outsider to the list, how do I know what your policy will be

other than "I've been rejected out of hand by someone else's list,

so my experience is that member only lists aren't willing to listen

to something I have to say unless I make the effort to sign up and

have yet another folder accumulating unread messages".  I don't.
Well, ok - maybe I do here since I've let myself be dragged in to

the debate.  Oops.
I get the same information from both project websites: "moderated

for non-members, public archives" - no way of knowing that ALSA

will accept me informing them of something they would be interested

without committing to reading or bit-bucketing their list.
The alternative is to subscribe just long enough to send something

and then unsubscribe again.... or cold-email a member and ask them

to pass a message along.  Or post and hope it doesn't get rejected,

not even knowing for a day or so.
Bron.

-

Well, my experience with moderation has been that moderated mails are

stuck in some queue for weeks.  Two seperate lists, neither of them was

alsa.  If also is doing a better job, great.  But it still has to live
Been there, done that.  In spite of people not being drooling retards,

the amount of time and effort they invest into either moderation or

improving the ruleset is quite limited.  Problems persist.
And even without mails being held hostage for weeks, every single

moderation mail is annoying.  Like the one I'm sure to receive after

sending this out.
Jörn
--

Joern's library part 5:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part2/section-9.html

-

Certainly. Upto this thread I wasn't actually aware the list was doing that.

While it might be informative once, getting it each time quickly gets old.

Don't know if mailman can do anything like it but I'd suggest anyone running

a non-subscriber-moderation list configure it to send such messages at most

once a <time-period> per address or some such. And just disable the message

if it cannot do that.
Fortunately, alsa-devel is (almost) no longer such a list anyway as it's

moving to vger. Hurrah. David -- thanks.
Rene.
-

From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl>
The fact that it farts at me every time I post to this thread.  That's
That sucks for new people taking part in the conversation.
There is no reason for moderation at all, it isn't necessary

for spam prevention and it does nothing but annoy new posters

and make work for the moderator.

-

It certainly is. I only experienced that now due to the "too many recipients

to message" moderation notice that I got from my own message.
Jaroslav -- please disable that junk or if possible, make it a "at most once 
Yes there is. It's necessary for lists that do not have the human and other

resouces behind it that vger does. alsa-devel was drowning in spam and dying

as a result back when it was at sourceforge. Upon moving, my preference was

to ask the lists to be hosted at vger but given that (it seems) Jaroslav

wanted to keep them locally, moderation was very necessary. I moderate out

quite a bit of spam every day.
vger is doing an amazing job at spam filtering -- if it's an option to move

to vger, than sure, no need. But otherwise, the "no need" needs a list admin

with enough bandwidth and skill.
As to the "new people": it's not optimal, but (upto this thread I'll admit

-- I woke up to a huge number of posts in the queue) it's not been a _real_

problem. alsa-devel is not high-volume enough for it to be.
Rene.
-

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
See?  I got another one and I have received at least 10 of the

following over the past 2 days.
That's rediculious.
And because a human adds the whitelist this is always going to

happen to someone when they start posting to the alsa list for

the first time.
/me gets ready for the 11th copy in response to this one...
--------------------

Subject: Your message to Alsa-devel awaits moderator approval

From: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org

To: davem@davemloft.net

Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:57:06 +0100

Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
Your mail to 'Alsa-devel' with the subject
    Re: [alsa-devel] [BUG] New Kernel Bugs
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
    Too many recipients to the message
Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive

notification of the moderator's decision.  If you would like to cancel

this posting, please visit the following URL:
    http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/confirm/alsa-devel/12dd3bd077bbf...
-

Nah, in this case you are not even getting them to not being a non-subcriber

but due to too many CCs. I got one as well. That just needs to be disabled,

does not have anything to do with non-subscribers (and you're in the white

list) but is just a retarted bit of list configuration...
(no, I can't personally change it, needs Jaroslav Kysela)
Rene.

-

At Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:01:31 -0800 (PST),
... if you give too many recipients in your post.  That is often

really annoying thing to me, together with keeping the unrelated

subject line ;)
I personally don't care whether it's a moderated or open list.

We chose it simply due to too bad S/N ratio at that time.  So, if the

current list annoys your or many others and the list management on

vger is so good, it'd be basically a good move, of course.  I'll

appreciate it.
The only confusion would be the change of ML address, but we can do it

slowly, too.
Takashi

-

I'd love the lists at vger. Amazing spam-filtering. I'd like to request the

name alsa-devel@vger.kernel.org (and alsa-user@vger.kernel.org if at all

possible so we can open that one up as well) though.
There wouldn't need to be a forced ML address change if Jaroslov would then

just rewrite alsa-{devel,user}@alsa-project.org to vger.kernel.org same as

he did for alsa-devel and does for alsa-user to @lists.sf.net.
Rene.
-

At Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:21:30 +0100,
I think alsa-user can stay as is.  It's no place for dragging many

other addresses like alsa-devel.
If it works, then I'm for it, too.
thanks,
Takashi

-

From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
That's fine with me, I've changed it alsa-devel@vger.kernel.org

-

Great, thanks. Jaroslav -- given that this list won't need moderation I'd

consider it the main/only alsa-devel. The alsa-devel subscriber database was

cleansed only a couple of months ago when moving from sourceforge so it

should now be okay to just transfer all subscriptions.
Or maybe you're already moving things; mailman.alsa-project.org seems to be

down at least....
Rene.
-

Let me just say - I'm astonished at how little spam gets though the vger

lists.  Considering how many times those email addresses must have been

added to spam databases.
It must be a lot of work, and whoever is doing it does it well.
I don't even know.  Is it Matti?  You?
<contemplates linux-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net.  Shudders.>

-

Martin's changed the owner for ARM bugs last night to the mailing list

so the whole issue is now redundant.
--

Russell King

 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/

 maintainer of:

-

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Matti gets all the credit for setting up the bayesian et al.
Yes, sourceforge is a complete joke.

-

My suggestion: regressions.
If we're really active in chasing down the regressions then I think we can

be confident that the kernel isn't deteriorating.  Probably it will be

improving as we also fix some always-been-there bugs.
I think that we're fairly good about working the regressions in

Adrian/Michal/Rafael's lists but once Linus releases 2.6.x we tend to let

the unsolved ones slide, and we don't pay as much attention to the
Yes, that's a useful technique.  If multiple people are being hurt a lot by

a bug then that's a more important one to fix than the single-person

minor-irritant bug.
otoh that doesn't work very well with driver/platform bugs.  Often these

are regressions which only a single person can reproduce within the time

window which we have in which we can fix it.  If we don't fix it in that

window it'll go out to distros and presumably some more people will hit it.
So I don't see much alternative here to the traditional

work-with-the-originator way of resolving it.
git bisection should really help us with these regressions but it doesn't

appear that people are using as much as one would like.  I'm hoping that

the very good http://www.kernel.org/doc/local/git-quick.html will help us

out here.  Thanks to the mystery person who prepared that.

-

Urm, well, if no-one ever tells the SCSI list it's unrealistic to expect

anyone to be working on it.  As far as I can tell, email was sent to

Andrew Vasquez only on 31 October. However, the fault looks to be

generic, so he probably just dropped it.
This seems to be the significant line from the trace:
Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel:   ISP2422: PCI-X Mode 1 (133 MHz) @

0000:01:03.0

hdma-, host#=1, fw=4.00.27 [IP]

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:01:03.1[B] -> GSI 29

(level, low) -> IRQ 22

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: qla2xxx 0000:01:03.1: Found an ISP2422, irq 22,

iobase 0xf8cf4000

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: qla2xxx 0000:01:03.1: Configuring PCI space...

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: qla2xxx 0000:01:03.1: Configure NVRAM

parameters...

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: qla2xxx 0000:01:03.1: Verifying loaded RISC

code...

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: qla2xxx 0000:01:03.1: Allocated (64 KB) for

EFT...

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: qla2xxx 0000:01:03.1: Allocated (1413 KB) for

firmware dump...

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: scsi2 : qla2xxx

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: qla2xxx 0000:01:03.1:

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel:  QLogic Fibre Channel HBA Driver: 8.01.07-k7

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel:   QLogic QLA2462 - PCI-X 2.0 to 4Gb FC, Dual

Channel

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel:   ISP2422: PCI-X Mode 1 (133 MHz) @ 0000:01:03.1

hdma-, host#=2, fw=4.00.27 [IP]

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: qla2xxx 0000:01:03.0: LIP reset occured (f8f7).

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: qla2xxx 0000:01:03.0: LIP occured (f8f7).

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: qla2xxx 0000:01:03.0: LOOP UP detected (4 Gbps).

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: ohci_hcd 0000:03:00.0: auto-stop root hub

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: ohci_hcd 0000:03:00.1: auto-stop root hub

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: scsi 1:0:0:0: Direct-Access     transtec

PV610F16R1C      348B PQ: 0 ANSI: 4

Oct  7 23:35:07 t-host kernel: kobject_add failed for 1:0:0:0 with -EEXIST,

don't try to register things wi...
[ message continues ]

It seems that new SCSI bugs need to be sent to linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org.
Martin, can you arrange that to happen automatically instead of

Andrew having to do it manually?
---

~Randy

-