18:01:57 <jforbes> #startmeeting Fedora Kernel Meeting
18:01:57 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Aug  3 18:01:57 2012 UTC.  The chair is jforbes. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:57 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:02:10 <jforbes> #chair jwb davej
18:02:10 <zodbot> Current chairs: davej jforbes jwb
18:02:37 <jforbes> Hello folks.  Let's start with who's here
18:03:11 <jforbes> #meetingname Fedora Kernel meeting
18:03:11 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_kernel_meeting'
18:03:41 <jwb> i'm here.  davej is 1/2 here
18:03:55 <jforbes> Okay, guess it is a pretty small list at this point.   Let's start with the regular run down of the releases
18:03:57 * nirik is lurking around
18:04:16 <jforbes> Then we will get into the Virtual FAD we have planned for the kernel regression tests suite
18:04:27 <jforbes> #topic Rawhide
18:04:36 <jforbes> jwb: care to take this one?
18:04:45 <jwb> sure!
18:05:21 <jwb> so Justin started the 3.6 merge window kernel rebases.  we've rolled through that and tomorrow's rawhide should contain 3.6-rc1 (with debug options off)
18:05:44 <jwb> aside from just the normal rebase stuff, we've also included the first set of secure boot patches
18:06:10 <jwb> for those really wanting to be daring, there is a kernel command line parameter that will allow you to essentially put your box in SB mode
18:06:23 <jwb> without having to actually have UEFI, or keys, etc
18:06:53 <jwb> secureboot_enable=1 will cause the kernel to fake out the permissions bits
18:07:05 <jwb> i wouldn't recommend setting it yet though. X likely will not start
18:07:35 <jforbes> Anything else on rawhide?
18:07:39 <pjones> I thought ajax already built X with that fix?
18:07:51 <jwb> pjones, ajax has patches.  they were submitted upstream
18:08:36 <pjones> ah, okay
18:08:36 <jwb> ok, ajax said he thinks they're in rawhide
18:08:42 <pjones> I mean, he already gave me a package
18:09:01 <jwb> yeah, i have one too.  so if someone wants to play and X doesn't start, let us know
18:09:27 <jforbes> Excellent, anything else on rawhide?
18:09:27 <jwb> jforbes, i don't have anything else on rawhide
18:09:35 <jforbes> #topic F17
18:09:43 <jwb> ok, ajax said the xorg patches aren't in rawhide
18:09:51 <jwb> 14:09 <@ajax> ugh, no, not done in rawhide.  thought i had, have the patches in  my git checkout, but clearly never checked it in
18:09:54 <jwb> anyway
18:09:55 <jwb> F17 :)
18:10:06 <jforbes> davej: I know you are on a crippled connection, so I will summarize, and you can add anything
18:10:23 <davej> thx
18:10:55 <jforbes> The 3.5 update has made it through updates-testing and pushed to stable.  Most of the major patches already there for obvious 3.5 problems
18:11:35 <jforbes> There is still the power issue with i915 that doesn't have a fix yet, though it is not exactly a major issue either.  Upstream is looking at it, and I think there will be a fix soon
18:12:15 <cpuobsessed> SDGathman: heh, you had the same idea
18:12:17 <jforbes> I would guess 3.5.1 will be tagged soon now that the merge window is closed, and we will get that into F17 as soon as possible
18:12:37 <jforbes> davej: anything to add?
18:13:53 <davej> no. thats about it
18:13:53 <jforbes> anyone else on F17?
18:14:59 <jforbes> Okay... moving on
18:14:59 <jforbes> #topic F16
18:14:59 <cpuobsessed> yes, F17
18:14:59 <jforbes> cpuobsessed: okay, go ahead
18:15:00 <cpuobsessed> i have a laptop with X2300 Radeon, I updated to the 3.5.0-2 kernel and now the video doesn't work; i filed a bug
18:15:17 <cpuobsessed> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845631
18:15:17 <SDGathman> F17 here also.  Dell D610 laptop won't boot with 3.5.0-2
18:15:32 <SDGathman> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845388
18:16:01 <cpuobsessed> mine would freeze during boot: fb: conflicting fb hw usage radeondrmfb vs VESA VGA - removing generic driver
18:16:21 <cpuobsessed> is there a possible workaround? or another kernel update?
18:16:45 <jwb> if nobody has commented in the bug yet, it means we haven't had time to look into it or haven't found anything yet
18:17:11 <jforbes> Okay, so we have bugs filled on both. It looks like a couple of people have reported the same thing. There is no update to address it right now, though I think I have seem some upstream discussion on the issue
18:17:46 <jwb> if someone is capable of doing a git bisect between 3.4 and 3.5 to find out which commit caused it, that would be very helpful
18:18:00 <jforbes> I will see what I can find on it, though I have not seen that behavior here
18:18:28 <jwb> i think i pointed airlied at one of the initial bugs.  he hadn't seen it either
18:18:56 <jforbes> But at this time, I don't know a quick workaround, and we don't have an update to address it, so the work around is to keep using 3.4.6 until a fix is available
18:19:16 <cpuobsessed> thanks, i may have another comment to add to my bug
18:19:48 <jforbes> And please respond if someone requests more information on your bug. It would be nice to get this fixed, but without being able to reproduce, we need your feedback
18:20:03 <jforbes> Anything else on F17?
18:21:00 <jforbes> Okay, moving on to F16
18:21:45 <jforbes> Right now F16 has 3.4.7 sitting in updates-testing.  It seems we are falling into the same pattern that F15 was in before. We have no one really testing and providing feedback
18:30:28 <jforbes> Once 3.4.7 pushes, I will start pushing 3.5 for F16
18:30:28 <jforbes> There are a number of bugs filed against F16 which we know are fixed with 3.5, so hopefully that will reduce the bug count a bit more
18:30:28 <jforbes> Anyone else have anything on F16?
18:30:28 <jforbes> Okay, moving on to the Virtual FAD
18:30:29 <jforbes> #topic Regression Test Suite Virtual FAD
18:30:29 <jforbes> A message went out to the lists today as well, but we will be hosting a Virtual Fedora Activity Day on August 14th to try and get things moving faster on the kernel regression test suite
18:30:29 <jforbes> more details are available at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelRegressionTesting_Virtual_FAD_20120814
18:30:29 <jforbes> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelRegressionTesting_Virtual_FAD_20120814
18:30:29 <jforbes> What we are looking for most is people to write new tests, flesh out existing tests, or make improvements to the overall test harness.
18:30:29 <jforbes> The code is available on git://git.fedorahosted.org/kernel-tests.git and there is a good deal of information on the wiki with what is required, what is in progress, and what still needs work
18:30:46 <jforbes> Anyone have any questions, comments, ideas on how we can make this a successful event?
18:30:46 <jforbes> If not, we will move on, though we would love to see you participate in the actual event
18:30:46 <jforbes> #topic rawhide linux-next
18:30:57 <jforbes> We have had some discussions regarding moving rawhide to the linux-next tree
18:30:58 <jforbes> jwb: want to take this one?
18:52:18 <jwb> nothing earth shattering, but definitely stuff that should have been caught by the linux-next process
18:52:18 * nirik welcomes zodbot back
18:52:18 <jwb> except hardly anybody runs linux-next
18:52:32 <jwb> that leads to some trouble getting last minute fixes in upstream, etc
18:52:55 <jwb> 2) rawhide kernel usage is pretty small.  aside from the kernel maintainers, we get very few reports on things in rawhide
18:53:24 <nirik> I think the debugging scares a lot of people away
18:53:25 <jwb> now, 2 is kinda unrelated to 1 but i was thinking since the audience is small and more technically oriented, we might try and build linux-next in rawhide
18:53:32 <jwb> nirik, yeah
18:53:55 <jwb> running linux-next wouldn't really remove that factor, but maybe we'd catch more issues sooner
18:54:22 <jwb> there are some windows we'd want to watch out for if we did this
18:54:28 <jwb> basically around release branch time
18:55:01 <jwb> it isn't set in stone at all, but i wanted to bring the possibility up
18:55:25 <jwb> do people think it's crazy?  is it something we should do as a side effort for a bit first, etc etc
18:55:41 <jforbes> I like the idea, though like you said, we have times when we couldn't do it. Like between now and the branch would be a bad idea
18:56:39 <jwb> right
18:56:44 <davej> how would we handle versioning ?
18:57:13 <jwb> pre-release style i guess
18:57:44 <davej> I'm just curious because if we're doing linux-next pre branching, and then we flip back to following linus' tree, we don't want version #'s to go backwards
18:58:06 <jwb> 3.6.0-rc0.0.git0.1 would be linux-next during the 3.5 stuff.  then if switch to actual 3.6 merge window kernels, we'd use 3.6.0-rc0.1.git0.1
18:58:24 <jwb> i have not thought about that in detail since i was kinda assuming people would tell me i'm crazy
18:59:00 <jforbes> I don't think it is crazy at all, just might require some more thought
18:59:26 <davej> maybe start a wiki page to flesh out all the different cases we'd have to handle
18:59:38 <jwb> yeah, sounds like a good idea
18:59:45 <jforbes> That's probably a good idea, and we can take it to list for further feedback
18:59:55 <jforbes> Does anyone have anything else before the clouds roll in?
19:00:32 <jforbes> Okay, going to endmeeting and let them have it then
19:00:37 <jforbes> #endmeeting