Kernel 4.11 status

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Kernel 4.11 status

arch dev mailing list
Hi,
Kernel package would be ready to push to [testing],
Problems with binary modules again:

nvidia:
I have not yet found a patch that applies with older versions.
Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is
legal.
http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935

Broken community modules:
- r8169
- vhba-module

Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
Thx.

greetings
tpowa


--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Kernel 4.11 status

arch dev mailing list
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is
> legal.
> http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935


We could patch the kernel to make the needed symbols non-GPL instead. That
at least sounds less problematic (IANAL).


> - vhba-module
>

Added a patch to trunk.


> Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
>

Since I have an Optimus laptop, I'm interested in keeping the nvidia driver
functional...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Kernel 4.11 status

Bartłomiej Piotrowski-3
In reply to this post by arch dev mailing list
On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].

I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1
for having 4.11 in [testing].

Bartłomiej
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Kernel 4.11 status

arch dev mailing list


Le 5 mai 2017 23:32:58 GMT+02:00, "Bartłomiej Piotrowski" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
>
>I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1
>for having 4.11 in [testing].
>
>Bartłomiej

+1 from me too, people relying on those modules can probably live on LTS while they are fixed, especially since LTS is just one version behind currently. ;)

Bruno
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Kernel 4.11 status

Pierre Schmitz
In reply to this post by Bartłomiej Piotrowski-3
On 05.05.2017 23:32, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
>
> I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1
> for having 4.11 in [testing].
>
> Bartłomiej

I disagree. We should not break [testing] on purpose. We actually want
people to use [testing] to look for unknown bugs. If we want to drop
support for the nvidia module that would be a different discussion.

Greetings,

Pierre

--
Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Kernel 4.11 status

arch dev mailing list
In reply to this post by arch dev mailing list
Il giorno ven 5 mag 2017 alle ore 08:29 Tobias Powalowski via
arch-dev-public <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Broken community modules:
> - r8169
>

I added a patch in trunk for r8168.

--
Massimiliano Torromeo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Kernel 4.11 status

Bartłomiej Piotrowski-3
In reply to this post by Pierre Schmitz
On 2017-05-06 08:28, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

> On 05.05.2017 23:32, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
>> On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>> Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
>>
>> I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1
>> for having 4.11 in [testing].
>>
>> Bartłomiej
>
> I disagree. We should not break [testing] on purpose. We actually want
> people to use [testing] to look for unknown bugs. If we want to drop
> support for the nvidia module that would be a different discussion.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Pierre
>

There is a difference between intentional breakage caused by our
laziness (we could fix the code, but we did not) and some proprietary
blob that we don't control. The bug is the driver itself.

Bartłomiej
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Kernel 4.11 status

Jelle van der Waa-2
In reply to this post by arch dev mailing list
On 05/05/17 at 06:58am, Jan Alexander Steffens via arch-dev-public wrote:

> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is
> > legal.
> > http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935
>
>
> We could patch the kernel to make the needed symbols non-GPL instead. That
> at least sounds less problematic (IANAL).
There is a patch for 4.12 to undo the change from GregKH. [1]

[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d557d1b58b3546bab2c5bc2d624c5709840e6b10.patch

--
Jelle van der Waa

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Kernel 4.11 status

arch dev mailing list
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:04:03PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

> On 05/05/17 at 06:58am, Jan Alexander Steffens via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is
> > > legal.
> > > http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935
> >
> >
> > We could patch the kernel to make the needed symbols non-GPL instead. That
> > at least sounds less problematic (IANAL).
>
> There is a patch for 4.12 to undo the change from GregKH. [1]
>
> [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d557d1b58b3546bab2c5bc2d624c5709840e6b10.patch
>
> --
> Jelle van der Waa
That patch is in the queue for 4.11.1 too, so once 4.11.1 lands the
nvidia driver should build as expected. I'm going to test later today if
everything builds fine with this patch applied.

--
Ike

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Kernel 4.11 status

arch dev mailing list
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:52:06PM +0200, Ike Devolder wrote:

> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:04:03PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > On 05/05/17 at 06:58am, Jan Alexander Steffens via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is
> > > > legal.
> > > > http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935
> > >
> > >
> > > We could patch the kernel to make the needed symbols non-GPL instead. That
> > > at least sounds less problematic (IANAL).
> >
> > There is a patch for 4.12 to undo the change from GregKH. [1]
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d557d1b58b3546bab2c5bc2d624c5709840e6b10.patch
> >
> > --
> > Jelle van der Waa
>
> That patch is in the queue for 4.11.1 too, so once 4.11.1 lands the
> nvidia driver should build as expected. I'm going to test later today if
> everything builds fine with this patch applied.
>
> --
> Ike
So with the patch given above or from the 4.11.1 queue [1] there are no
more issues with the nvidia drivers.

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/plain/queue-4.11/refcount-change-export_symbol-markings.patch

--
Ike

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Kernel 4.11 status

Sébastien Luttringer
In reply to this post by Bartłomiej Piotrowski-3
On Sun, 2017-05-07 at 21:54 +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:

> On 2017-05-06 08:28, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> > On 05.05.2017 23:32, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> > > On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > > > Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
> > >
> > > I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1
> > > for having 4.11 in [testing].
> > >
> > > Bartłomiej
> >
> > I disagree. We should not break [testing] on purpose. We actually want
> > people to use [testing] to look for unknown bugs. If we want to drop
> > support for the nvidia module that would be a different discussion.
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Pierre
> >
>
> There is a difference between intentional breakage caused by our
> laziness (we could fix the code, but we did not) and some proprietary
> blob that we don't control. The bug is the driver itself.
>
> Bartłomiej
We should continue to make no difference between proprietary softwares and not
in our packaging quality as long as they are in our official repositories.

I didn't read a reason to rush on this before getting more feedback from
upstreams. Not to mention that the fix may finally land into the kernel
package, which is pretty open.

Cheers,


-- 
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer



signature.asc (837 bytes) Download Attachment