Re: Multiple kernels

On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 7:54 PM Benson Muite wrote: > > > Fedora has a policy to support only one kernel. Projects such as OpenHarmony > support multiple kernels to enable reuse of components on devices with a wide > range of compute capabilities - in particular mobile and edge devices. Is >

Re: lazy preemption in kernel 6.13

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 7:51 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > I'm a little confused about this new type of preemption. > > "The long road to lazy preemption" [1] article says: > > "The lazy mode will occupy a place between PREEMPT_NONE and > PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY, replacing both of them." > > Whereas Linux

Re: GCC 15 for Fedora 42 in a side-tag

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 4:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 12:53:29PM -0700, Justin Forbes wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 11:51 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > > On 15. 01. 25 17:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > >

Re: GCC 15 for Fedora 42 in a side-tag

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 11:51 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 15. 01. 25 17:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 05:06:47PM +0100, Karolina Surma wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> My Python 3.14 builds have started pulling gcc 15 in Fedora Rawhide (no > >> side-tag). Is this in

Re: Building upstream kernel with Fedora config

On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 9:19 AM Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > [CCing Justin] > > On 04.06.24 18:12, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote: > > > Instruction [1] about building upstream kernel should be updated, > > I'd tend to disagree. I think the root of the problem should be fixed, > which you... > > > because

Where is jforbes (kernel maintainer) for the next 4-8 weeks?

Unfortunately I will be out on medical leave for the next 4-8 weeks. Augusto Caringi (acaringi) has been doing a great job with the fedora stable kernel releases recently and will be the point of contact for fedora kernel issues in my absence. Other good points of contact include Peter Robinson (

Re: dmesg restricted to root in Rawhide

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 2:16 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/commit/ed5ba266c61e01a52359b5793a627e7c9aae8854 > > Why wasn't this a Fedora change proposal? > > Also the justification given for such a major change is very thin. > I'm sure product securi

Re: Bisecting an older kernel

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 7:49 AM Julian Sikorski wrote: > > Am 12.02.24 um 10:03 schrieb Michael J Gruber: > > Am So., 11. Feb. 2024 um 23:14 Uhr schrieb Julian Sikorski > > : > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I am trying to bisect an issue which appears to have regressed between > >> 5.18 final and 5.19

Re: [Test-Announce] Kernel 6.7 Test Week is underway!

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 5:49 PM Leigh Scott wrote: > > > Thanks for holding the push to testing, I have managed to patch nvidia > > 545.xx and > > 550.xx so > 470.xx is also patched. > > I think it is ok to push the new kernel to testing, the legacy nvidia drivers > shouldn't hold up the new kern

Re: Mounting USB Storage devices with "sync" option ?

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:36 AM Leon Fauster via devel wrote: > > Am 31.01.24 um 09:57 schrieb Larina Loriasel via devel: > >> 'sync' has some strong downsides though: various operations become > >> painfully slow (this depends a lot on the hardware and its age, and > >> the history of previous wr

Re: [Test-Announce] Kernel 6.7 Test Week is underway!

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 1:45 AM Leigh Scott wrote: > > Kernel-6.7.3 still has debugging enabled which will break the nvidia driver This is not accurate. The 6.7.3 (and 6.6.15) updates did break the nvidia driver. It has nothing to do with debugging being enabled. A proper and valid bugfix: 5ec

Re: Unannounced soname bump in F39 updates-testing kernel-tools-libs

On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:48 AM Chris Adams wrote: > > kernel-tools-libs changed libcpupower.so.0 to libcpupower.so.1 in > 6.6.2-200.fc39, which breaks mate-applets and gnome-applets. This was backed out for the stable Fedora updates. The soname bump stands in F40. Note, there is no functional

Re: time is running: security issue BZ#2241470

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 10:55 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 11:13:32AM +0200, Marius Schwarz wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > this is emerg ping for the security team, to take a look at this bz : > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241470 > > If this is an embargoed

Re: Should Fedora switch to full kernel preemption (CONFIG_PREEMPT=y)?

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 8:53 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 06:14:17PM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote: > > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 3:44 PM Demi Marie Obenour > > wrote: > > > > > > I noticed that by default, Qubes OS has voluntary kernel

Re: Should Fedora switch to full kernel preemption (CONFIG_PREEMPT=y)?

On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 3:44 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > I noticed that by default, Qubes OS has voluntary kernel preemption > as opposed to full preemption. I found that enabling full preemption > (preempt=full on kernel command line) makes the system significantly > more responsive under h

Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230426.n.0 changes

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 04:31:53PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 3:26 PM Fedora Rawhide Report > wrote: > > > > Can we please make the kernel RPM not have 2000 lines of changelog > every time there's a version bump? > It doesn't make sense to include the entire git commi

Re: soname bump: libtraceevent and libtracefs

onday, that way it will automatically follow into stable Fedora as they get the 6.3 rebase. Justin > John Kacur > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 12:12 AM Zamir SUN wrote: >> >> >> On 4/5/23 23:49, Justin Forbes wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 5:05 AM Zamir

Re: soname bump: libtraceevent and libtracefs

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 5:05 AM Zamir SUN wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm working on libtraceevent and libtracefs update. There will be soname > bump happening to them. Namely, > > libtraceevent.so 1.6.3 -> 1.7.2 > libtracefs.so 1.5.0 -> 1.6.4 > > IIRC only kernel-tools (for perf and rtla) and trace-cmd dep

Re: Rawhide and debug kernel changes

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 6:52 AM Dan Horák wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 14:17:36 -0600 > Justin Forbes wrote: > > > As the MR is now merged, it is a good time to make sure that everyone > > is aware. As of 6.2-rc5, Rawhide is no longer forcing a debug build > >

Rawhide and debug kernel changes

As the MR is now merged, it is a good time to make sure that everyone is aware. As of 6.2-rc5, Rawhide is no longer forcing a debug build with any kernels. All rawhide kernels are now built just like stable Fedora kernels, with both non-debug and debug variations. This change was necessary becaus

Re: F37 kernel 6.0.16/6.0.18 breaking Python tests: Allows to bind a socket twice

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:00 AM wrote: > > Justin Forbes wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 6:53 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > This does seem a bug. The big question, is does 6.1 make it go away? > > kernel-6.1.4-200.fc37 is available in koji. The 6.0 series

Re: F37 kernel 6.0.16/6.0.18 breaking Python tests: Allows to bind a socket twice

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 7:33 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 11. 01. 23 14:12, Justin Forbes wrote: > >> Is this a bug that needs to be fixed or do the tests need to be changed > >> not to > >> assert this? > >> > >> The fact that 6.2.0 mak

Re: F37 kernel 6.0.16/6.0.18 breaking Python tests: Allows to bind a socket twice

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 6:53 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello. > > On Monday I observed that the Fedora 37 and 36 Python CI tests on the Testing > farm fail. > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/c...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YOXVRWJNJMNSTUG6O43KE4K6Q57GV7DR/ > > The same tests w

Re: fedora libbpf upgrade to 1.0

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:04 PM Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 09:59:49AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > hi, > > I'm upgrading libbpf to 1.0 and because it's changing the soname it > > requires changes in dependent packages. > > > > You're receiving this email because you're maintainer

Re: The performance impact of various debug options on Fedora Rawhide debug kernels

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 4:29 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > The current Fedora Rawhide kernels are too slow to run libguestfs > tests when doing Koji builds. These run in a qemu VM, running the > Rawhide kernel, emulated using software virtualization (ie. TCG). > They now time out because these

Re: The performance impact of various debug options on Fedora Rawhide debug kernels

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 4:29 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > The current Fedora Rawhide kernels are too slow to run libguestfs > tests when doing Koji builds. These run in a qemu VM, running the > Rawhide kernel, emulated using software virtualization (ie. TCG). > They now time out because these

Re: Making Fedora faster (was Re: F37 proposal: Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer to default compilation flags (System-Wide Change proposal))

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 3:11 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 01:36:22PM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > can probably just treat as a proxy for RHEL performance.) Clear and > > RHEL (rebuilds) probably get most of their advantages from building > > for an x86_64-v2 microarchit

Re: exploded git tree for kernel-5.17.4-200.fc35

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 3:12 AM Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > On 05/31/22 08:58, Dan Horák wrote: > > On Tue, 31 May 2022 08:39:28 +0200 > > Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> where can I find the exploded git tree for "kernel-5.17.4-200.fc35"? > >> > >> The tree at > >>

Re: Fixing out of date nodebug kernels

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 9:51 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/rawhide-kernel-nodebug/ > > At time of writing the nodebug kernels have a lower NVR than the ones > in Koji and Rawhide. In fact, this is quite often the case. > > Now I understand why this happens,

Re: Would it be useful to have a video call to discuss the "Deprecate Legacy BIOS" Change proposal?

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 6:39 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Ralf Corsépius wrote: > > I do not agree with this statement. Like previous "Legacy SIGs" this is > > a red herring to obfuscate RHATs lack of disinterest with topics, which > > do not match into their business objectives. > > I am

Re: F37 Change: Deprecate Legacy BIOS (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:31 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:23 AM Justin Forbes wrote: > > > > Apple and Microsoft signing NVIDIA's proprietary driver doesn't at all > > > indicate Apple and Microsoft trust the driver itself. It is trus

Re: F37 Change: Deprecate Legacy BIOS (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:39 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:08 PM Jared Dominguez wrote: > > > The security of UEFI systems is immeasurably better. Standardized firmware > > updates, support for modern secure TPMs, OS protection from firmware (SMM > > mitigations), HTTP(S) b

Re: filesystems and year 2038

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:50 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:48 AM Colin Walters wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022, at 3:51 PM, Justin Forbes wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:47 AM Colin Walters wrote: > >

Re: filesystems and year 2038

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:10 AM Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Neal Gompa said: > > What about squashfs? We use that for the live media, is that affected? > > There's also vfat (for EFI system partition) and ISO9660 (base for all > media). How do they handle dates? > -- FAT filesystems

Re: filesystems and year 2038

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:47 AM Colin Walters wrote: > > Hi, creating a thread on this from: > https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/1650 > > Basically I'd propose that not just our default images have y2038-compatible > filesystem setups, we ensure that if e.g. XFS is explicitly ch

Re: FESCo wants to know what you use i686 packages for

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 8:54 AM David Cantrell wrote: > > Hi, > > Our most recent FESCo meeting involved discussing the proposal to drop i686 > builds of jdk8,11,17 from Fedora 37 onward. The topic quickly changed to the > larger question of "what do people use i686 packages for?" As it turns ou

Re: RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:51 AM Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 09:44 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022, at 12:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > Hi Fedora, CentOS, and EPEL Communities! > > > > > > As part of our continued 3 year major Red Hat Enterprise Linux > > >

Re: "rescue" boot entry files are not updated on OS upgrades

e rescue entry, changes, i.e. when the > matching /usr/lib/modules for the rescue entry are present early on, > you do get a full runtime behavior, you will get to a graphical > environment. But then once the version matched /usr/lib/modules are > removed, you get a completely dif

Re: Rawhide kernel crash

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 6:30 AM Leigh Scott wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 6:56 AM edmond pilon > > > These configs are in preparation for an F36 potential feature, and > > were not intended to work flawlessly on F35 or earlier. They were > > backed out from the fedora-5.15 branch as soon as

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:32 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:27:15PM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote: > > > gcc 12 snapshot has landed as the system compiler into rawhide today. > > > GCC 12 is going to enter its stage4 development phase (only regression

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 8:32 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > gcc 12 snapshot has landed as the system compiler into rawhide today. > GCC 12 is going to enter its stage4 development phase (only regression > and documentation bugfixes allowed) on Monday 17th, so there should be > just those bugf

Re: Rawhide builds failing for a while now

On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 1:19 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 20:03 +0100, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote: > > So, it seems it didn't come to my mind that builders might not have new > > enough rpm to use rpm.open() which is available since rpm 4.17.0. > > > > A fix for it ( > > http

Re: Rawhide builds failing for a while now

On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:56 AM Ian McInerney wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:47 PM Justin Forbes wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 9:29 AM Ian McInerney via devel >> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:19 PM Justin Forbes wrote: &

Re: Rawhide builds failing for a while now

On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 9:29 AM Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:19 PM Justin Forbes wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 3:36 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:34:52AM -, Reon Beon via devel

Re: Rawhide builds failing for a while now

On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 3:36 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:34:52AM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote: > > What exactly is wrong? > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?state=3&order=-build_id > > Well, thats the list of all failed builds in koji. There's various >

Re: Fedora 33 End Of Life

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 4:16 PM Mohan Boddu wrote: > > Hello all, > > Fedora 33 will go end of life for updates and support on 30th of > November 2021. No further updates, including security updates, will be > available for Fedora 33 after the said date. All the updates of Fedora > 33 being pushed

Re: Rawhide kernel crash

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 6:56 AM edmond pilon wrote: > > CONFIG_SYSFB_SIMPLEFB=y > CONFIG_DRM_SIMPLEDRM=m > # CONFIG_FB_SIMPLE is not set > > Fix the issue. These configs are in preparation for an F36 potential feature, and were not intended to work flawlessly on F35 or earlier. They were backed ou

Re: RISC-V -- are we ready for more, and what do we need to do it?

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 12:03 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > Hi all! I just got back from Open Source Summit, several of the talks I > found interesting were on RISC-V -- a high-level one about the > organizational structure, and Drew Fustini's more technical talk. > > In that, he noted that there's

Re: Where has the kernel-doc package gone?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 4:04 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 11:31 AM Nils K wrote: > > > > I found the origin of this change to be the following commit: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/c/b65f9ed036fca30c0684bfc6fe72d72a53e9867a?branch=f21

Re: Use zstd for kernel modules (and the kernel rpm too)

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 7:14 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 12:46:33PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 08:51:15PM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote: > > > LINUX KERNEL -- > > > Adding to the variety of places where the Linux kernel sup

Re: Where has the kernel-doc package gone?

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 11:31 AM Nils K wrote: > > I found the origin of this change to be the following commit: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/c/b65f9ed036fca30c0684bfc6fe72d72a53e9867a?branch=f21 > (which is a revert of a revert to remove the kernel-doc subpackage). > The commit al

Re: I think we should stop building i686 packages we're not shipping

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:14 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Matthew Miller: > > > This is an off-shoot thought of the 32-bit ARM conversation. Right now, we > > build stuff like libreoffice for i686, but then (mostly) don't ship it. > > This seems like a waste of resources and time. > > > > I kno

Re: Weird Koji build failure

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 9:41 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:29:27AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:13 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:07:38AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > https://koj

Re: Any recent changes to the arm builders?

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:12 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:32:59AM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:27 AM Caolán McNamara wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 08:21 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > > &g

Re: Any recent changes to the arm builders?

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:27 AM Caolán McNamara wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 08:21 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > Looks like the vtk build just as it was about to finish (after 11+ > > hours ...) restarted. This is pretty unworkable. > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?tas

Re: Dynamic preemption support in Linux 5.12 kernel

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:12 PM Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 1:29 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:25 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > > wrote: > > > > > > On 25.04.2021 20:39, Artem Tim wrote: > > &g

Re: Kernel thermal configuration issues in laptop

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 8:46 AM Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 15:12, Benjamin Berg wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > is thermald.service active and running on that machine? > > thermald is not (and was never) installed. > > I'm pretty sure now it has something to do with some kernel chang

Re: Fedora 34 90 second timeout in initrd / dbus ordering issue

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 1:58 AM Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi Zbigniew, Justin, > > I assume you are familiar with $subject, also see e.g. : > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976653 > > I have just come back from a week vacation and I see that this is > still not resolved, what is the

Re: Fedora Source-git SIG report #1 (June 2021)

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:40 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 03:13:10PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 8:09 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:48:54PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote: > > > > On Th

Re: Fedora Source-git SIG report #1 (June 2021)

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 7:52 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:43 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 03:49:23AM +, Dan Čermák wrote: > > > > > > > > > On June 24, 2021 9:22:51 PM UTC, "Miro Hrončok" > > > wrote: > > > >On 24. 06. 21 23:0

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 3:23 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 02:57:17PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > >We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora > > >users hardware. > > Telemetry is evil. It must not be allowed. > > Well, that's certainly A P

Re: F35 Change: Make btrfs the default file system for Fedora Cloud (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 10:19 AM David Duncan wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 4:13 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 06:52:40AM -, David Duncan wrote: >> > Bumping this for technical discussion. We are planning to put this in >> > action if there a

Re: Friday , May 28 unattended update broke amdgpu DKMS building

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 12:17 PM L 5 wrote: > > I'm glad you ask this question. > > The answer is: I am using whatever Fedo34 installs. Whether "normal kernel > drivers" work, I have no idea. Fedora 34 installations should never, under any circumstances, install a driver that requires dkms. Pac

Re: F35 Change: Make btrfs the default file system for Fedora Cloud (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:04 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraCloudBtrfsByDefault > > == Summary == > > For cloud installs of Fedora, we want to provide advanced file system > features to users in a transparent fashion. Thus, we are changing the > file system

Re: Linux 5.13 To Allow Zstd Compressed Modules, Zstd Update Pending With Faster Performance

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 8:49 PM Reon Beon via devel wrote: > > Any update? As others have said, it takes a reasonable amount of work. Currently kmod in Rawhide and F34 support zstd, but not F33. Even if this support was everywhere, it requires a number of changes, and testing to verify that the

Re: It's time for the Matrix

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:26 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > Hello all! > > Due to the recent changes[1] in Freenode IRC network, I think it's time > to speed-up switching all the Fedora official channels to the Matrix > network. > As long as they have an IRC bridge, cool. Otherwise I am f

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 08:38:29AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2021-05-18 at 08:26 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > You reported my complaints as: > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4219. Thanks! > > > > I'm going to go ahead and ask that the gating be turned off unti

Re: [PATCH] kernel-tools: Remove libbpf package

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 9:15 AM Jiri Olsa wrote: > > It's separate package now. > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa Thanks, applied. This will go away with the kernel-tools-5.11.19 build happening right now, and the first rawhide build that succeeds (currently still failing aarch64 with FAILED unresolve

Re: Dynamic preemption support in Linux 5.12 kernel

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:30 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > I created a Fedora Workstation issue to track the progress, and figure > out if any or all of the desktops want to do full preemption by > default. > https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/228 Unless I missed a commit, it is x86_64 only

Re: Dynamic preemption support in Linux 5.12 kernel

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:12 PM Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 1:29 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:25 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > > wrote: > > > > > > On 25.04.2021 20:39, Artem Tim wrote: > > &g

Re: Dynamic preemption support in Linux 5.12 kernel

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:25 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 25.04.2021 20:39, Artem Tim wrote: > > Please provide full PREEMPT mode by default in 5.12 kernel for desktop > > variants. With 5.12 it is possible for user to change it without efforts if > > they need this. > > +1 for thi

Re: 2021-04-15 dnf broken in rawhide?

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 8:11 AM Nicola Sella wrote: > > Hello, > > I am sorry for the issue, that's my fault. > > I tried to release the whole stack yesterday (Thursday), but I bumped into > some unexpected failures (unrelated to this) during the scratch build for > dnf-plugins-core and other pa

Re: Announcing creation of Fedora Source-git SIG

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:47 PM Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > On 14.04.21 10:45, Tomas Tomecek wrote: > > Good morning, I'd like to announce the creation of Fedora Source-git SIG: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Source-git > > > > Our main goal in the SIG right now is to establish a devel

Re: Building custom kernels

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 3:32 AM Julian Sikorski wrote: > > Am 01.03.21 um 17:37 schrieb Brandon Nielsen: > > On 2/28/21 12:00 PM, Julian Sikorski wrote: > >> W dniu 27.02.2021 o 20:59, Julian Sikorski pisze: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I am trying to test some Renoir s2idle patches [1]. It appears that >

Re: Building custom kernels

On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 12:00 PM Julian Sikorski wrote: > > W dniu 27.02.2021 o 20:59, Julian Sikorski pisze: > > Hi, > > > > I am trying to test some Renoir s2idle patches [1]. It appears that > > Fedora kernel source is now maintained on gitlab as kernel-ark [2]. What > > I tried is adding the p

Re: Fedora 35 Change proposal: POWER 4k page size (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:53 PM Alex Perez wrote: > > > > Daniel Pocock wrote on 2/22/21 10:41 AM: > > I feel that you underestimate the impact of the GPU driver issue > > > > If the GPU driver doesn't work, people can't even log in and get started > > > > If the GPU vendors don't test their code

Re: Fedora 35 Change proposal: POWER 4k page size (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:21 AM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Power4kPageSize > > == Summary == > > On ppc64le, the kernel is currently compiled for 64k page size. > > This change proposes using the more common 4k page size. > > Some HPC workloads may be disadvantag

Re: Proposal to deprecated `fedpkg local`

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:18 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Hi, > > I wonder, what would be the sentiment if I proposed to deprecated the > `fedpkg local` command. I don't think it should be used. Mock should be > the preferred way. Would there be anybody really missing this functionality? > I would

Re: Radeon with 64k page size (ppc64 and others)

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:31 PM Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > > On 07/01/2021 19:15, Dan Horák wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 18:00:42 + > > Peter Robinson wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:24 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:10 AM Daniel Pocock wrote: > > >

Re: Fedora Security Team

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:10 AM Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: > > I dont think creating 5 bugs per CVE is a correct statement here. We create > one bug per product per CVE. > > So if fedora is affected with a node.js, we create one fedora tracker per > CVE. The tracker should block the CVE bug, so i

Re: ld segfaults on rawhide

On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:17 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 11/3/20 6:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 11/3/20 9:56 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:57:48AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote: > >>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 10:38 AM Justin Forb

Re: ld segfaults on rawhide

On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 10:38 AM Justin Forbes wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 10:32 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > On 10/31/20 9:13 AM, Christoph Junghans wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am getting the following error on all archs on rawhi

Re: ld segfaults on rawhide

On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 10:32 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 10/31/20 9:13 AM, Christoph Junghans wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am getting the following error on all archs on rawhide: > > collect2: fatal error: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation > > fault], core dumped > > in https://koji.fedorapr

Re: Kernel - default log levels

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 4:24 PM David S. wrote: > > > Hi, > > I just spotted that there is a difference in the default log levels on > Fedora and RHEL-8 vs RHEL-7. > > Fedora/RHEL-8 uses: > ># cat /proc/sys/kernel/printk >7 4 1 7 > > while RHEL-7 uses: > ># cat /proc/

Re: fedora net install iso the possibilitie to add espeakup for people like me whome are blind?

On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:06 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:43 pm, Robbie Harwood > wrote: > > That's unfortunate, and will hurt adoption with users who need it. > > Are > > there things that could be done to make it easier to add? > > Currently anaconda is not accessib

Re: Fedora official kernel build fails to compile on Copr

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:12 AM Germano Massullo wrote: > > I solved the previous error about macros expanded in comments, and now > the build fails for other strange reasons. > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/germano/kernel_204253_comment_14_patch/build/1616496/ Macros expanded in commen

Re: nodebug kernel repo file missing

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 5:24 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RawhideKernelNodebug > links to > http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/rawhide-kernel-nodebug/fedora-rawhide-kernel-nodebug.repo > which gives 404 now. The kernels seems to be there though. But with

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 7:54 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:03 PM Michael Catanzaro > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:16 pm, Stephen John Smoogen > > wrote: > > > The issue isn't that you haven't done your work. It is that it looks > > > like you were set

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:29 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:19 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:30 PM Justin Forbes > > > wrote: > >

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:30 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:39 PM John M. Harris Jr > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:22:00 AM MST Stephen John Smoogen w

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:39 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:22:00 AM MST Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 11:09, Michael Catanzaro > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:26 am, Stephen Gallagher > > > wrote: > > > > > > > For th

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:00 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:26 am, Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > For the record, as this directly affects the Workstation deliverable, > > I will be voting -1 until and unless the Workstation WG votes in > > favor. > > > > Yes, it's a

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 5:17 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 2:30 PM Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 2:53 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> >> > Why would we be installing something by default that has widely known >> > broken functionality? >> >> Because the

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:05 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:45 pm, Markus Larsson > wrote: > > I strongly agree. BTRFS has been 5 years from production ready for > > almost a decade now, please don't force this on users that doesn't > > know any better. > > This is hard

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:30 AM Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Fr, 26.06.20 10:42, Ben Cotton (bcot...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BtrfsByDefault > > If this is decided to be the way to go, please work with kernel > maintainers to make btrfs.ko a built-in ker

Re: wireguard kmod package

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 6:33 AM Leigh Scott wrote: > > > From what I understood of the thread it's purely removing the akmod > > and the new kernels have the module so how does it break their VPNs? > > If you remove akmod-wireguard it will also remove the wireguard package which > will cause the

Re: Something weird with modules in kernel-5.8.0-0.rc0.20200608gitaf7b4801030c.1.fc33.x86_64

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 12:17 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:06 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > I've installed kernel-5.8.0-0.rc0.20200608gitaf7b4801030c.1.fc33.x86_64 but > > not rebooted (still running 5.6.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc33.x86_64 on th

Re: Something weird with modules in kernel-5.8.0-0.rc0.20200608gitaf7b4801030c.1.fc33.x86_64

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:06 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I've installed kernel-5.8.0-0.rc0.20200608gitaf7b4801030c.1.fc33.x86_64 but > not rebooted (still running 5.6.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc33.x86_64 on the host). > > However /lib/modules/5.8.0-[...] has not been fully created in some way. > In part

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 33 Python 3.9 rebuilds have started in a side tag

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:17 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 26. 05. 20 16:14, Justin Forbes wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:50 AM Miro Hrončok > <mailto:mhron...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > On 22. 05. 20 3:06, Miro Hrončok wrote: >

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 33 Python 3.9 rebuilds have started in a side tag

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:50 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22. 05. 20 3:06, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello, in order to deliver Python 3.9, we are running a coordinated > rebuild in a > > side tag. > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python3.9 > > > > If you see a "Rebuilt for Python 3.9"

  1   2   3   >