| *** kristerman has joined #cip | 00:24 | |
| *** kristerman has quit IRC | 00:28 | |
| *** kristerman has joined #cip | 01:19 | |
| *** kristerman has quit IRC | 01:23 | |
| *** kristerman has joined #cip | 01:47 | |
| *** kristerman has quit IRC | 01:51 | |
| *** kristerman has joined #cip | 02:41 | |
| *** kristerman has quit IRC | 02:46 | |
| *** kristerman has joined #cip | 03:12 | |
| *** kristerman has quit IRC | 03:16 | |
| *** Ystk has joined #cip | 04:22 | |
| *** Ystk has quit IRC | 04:50 | |
| *** patersonc has joined #cip | 06:21 | |
| *** kristerman has joined #cip | 06:25 | |
| *** kristerman has quit IRC | 06:31 | |
| *** rajm has joined #cip | 07:11 | |
| *** kristerman has joined #cip | 07:15 | |
| *** kristerman has quit IRC | 07:20 | |
| *** kristerman has joined #cip | 07:54 | |
| *** kristerman has quit IRC | 07:58 | |
| *** toscalix has joined #cip | 08:08 | |
| * rajm runs health checks on BBB and renesas-iwg20m which work and results emailed to list | 08:09 | |
| toscalix | bwh: will you be able to attend to the cip-dev meeting? | 08:11 |
|---|---|---|
| *** kristerman has joined #cip | 08:38 | |
| bwh | toscalix: yes I'm here | 08:42 |
| toscalix | great | 08:42 |
| *** kristerman has quit IRC | 08:52 | |
| toscalix | suddenly I have no access to cip-project mailman | 08:53 |
| * rajm agrees and wonders what's happened | 08:54 | |
| szlin | ditto | 08:55 |
| *** vidda has joined #cip | 08:56 | |
| toscalix | notified to jeff from LF | 08:59 |
| szlin | Let's start the meeting | 09:00 |
| toscalix | szlin: would you conduct the meeting? | 09:00 |
| szlin | sure | 09:00 |
| toscalix | not sure I can stay the whole meeting | 09:00 |
| toscalix | thanks | 09:00 |
| szlin | #startmeeting | 09:00 |
| szlin | #topic 1. roll call | 09:00 |
| szlin | please say hi if you're here | 09:01 |
| gavinlai | hi | 09:01 |
| patersonc | hi | 09:01 |
| * rajm says hi | 09:01 | |
| toscalix | hi o/ | 09:01 |
| *** kristerman has joined #cip | 09:01 | |
| bwh | hi | 09:01 |
| szlin | #topic 2. CIP kernel maintenance team working model | 09:01 |
| *** vidda has joined #cip | 09:02 | |
| szlin | Ben had replied the mail yeserday in cip-dev | 09:02 |
| szlin | he addressed that " this would depend on how many developers would be working on it (from all CIP members) and how much time they can devote." | 09:02 |
| weshuang | hi | 09:03 |
| toscalix | should we use an existing mailing list, a new one or mail directly bwh for pre-reviewing the patches ? | 09:03 |
| vidda | hi | 09:03 |
| bwh | I don't expect the volume to be that high, so either cip-dev or directly to me (or other developer experienced with doing public reviews) | 09:04 |
| toscalix | I would go for cip-dev with a specific tag on the subject so we can filter | 09:05 |
| toscalix | or similar | 09:05 |
| patersonc | For the CIP Kernel maintenance itself, as it looks like there will be multiple maintainers is there any value in using something like patchwork? | 09:05 |
| toscalix | better same process/tool than the kernel: mail This is about learning how the kernel does it, isn't it? | 09:07 |
| bwh | There could be; I haven't tried using it yet. But for the time being we're mostly going to be reviewing changes in 4.4-stable | 09:07 |
| bwh | toscalix: Some kernel subsystems use patchwork | 09:08 |
| toscalix | for cip core, I would use what debian use it for the same reason. But this is out of scope | 09:08 |
| toscalix | bwh: LTS? | 09:08 |
| bwh | What about it? | 09:08 |
| patersonc | renesas-soc uses patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-renesas-soc/list/ | 09:09 |
| patersonc | Patchwork would only be useful for cip, not for LTS review | 09:09 |
| szlin | toscalix: Do you mean patchwork for LTS? | 09:09 |
| * toscalix is bias. Not a big fan of patchwork but I would agree on whatever kernel guys do | 09:09 | |
| toscalix | LTS does not use it, right? So I would not use it for this. CIP core, I would consider it | 09:10 |
| *** HarryYJ_Jhou has joined #cip | 09:10 | |
| bwh | toscalix: Right, stable/longterm branches are managed with a patch queue and mailed out for review | 09:11 |
| toscalix | so that is what needs to be learned/promoted, I think | 09:11 |
| toscalix | I would like to see a way to use mail + gitlab but that is out of the scope for now. Maybe for CIP core... | 09:12 |
| toscalix | #idea evaluate patchwork for cip-core or mail+gitlab | 09:13 |
| toscalix | #idea evaluate patchwork for cip-kernel# | 09:13 |
| szlin | back to kernel maintenance, how do we co-work with each others to avoid re-work in the same patch | 09:14 |
| toscalix | #agreed use cip-dev for interinm 4.4-stable patch review | 09:14 |
| szlin | it's FIFO policy in upstream kernel. | 09:14 |
| bwh | szlin: I'm not sure we should initially. Multiple reviews of the same patch may catch more problems! | 09:15 |
| szlin | fair enough | 09:15 |
| toscalix | szlin: I do not think concurrency is an issue in stable :-) | 09:15 |
| bwh | With more experienced reviewers I can see this being more useful. Then I suppose we would divide up each stable series between the available reviewers in CIP. | 09:16 |
| * patersonc agrees | 09:18 | |
| toscalix | szlin: are you fine with that? | 09:19 |
| * szlin agree with that | 09:19 | |
| toscalix | are we done with this topic? | 09:20 |
| szlin | so ben, do you mean that you{or others} will send out the patches which are under review to cip-dev | 09:20 |
| patersonc | So was the plan to forward the stable reviews to cip-dev? | 09:21 |
| szlin | patersonc: the same question :D | 09:21 |
| patersonc | :) | 09:21 |
| bwh | I was thinking that reviewers would subscribe to stable, and then if they weren't sure about sending a review then they would send that to cip-dev first | 09:22 |
| bwh | But for a start I can forward the latest 4.4-stable patch series (4.4.128) to cip-dev since reviewers presumably aren't all subscribed to stable already | 09:23 |
| bwh | You can then either reply to cip-dev or reply-all | 09:23 |
| bwh | How does that sound? | 09:24 |
| szlin | I think it worth to try | 09:24 |
| toscalix | any potential reviewer around who disagrees? | 09:25 |
| szlin | so that the members reply the result of patches review afterwards | 09:25 |
| toscalix | 3 | 09:25 |
| toscalix | 2 | 09:25 |
| toscalix | 1 | 09:26 |
| toscalix | #agreed interim 4.4-stable patch review process | 09:26 |
| toscalix | questions about details please send them to cip-dev | 09:26 |
| toscalix | is it worth it to write down somewhere on the wiki this agreement? | 09:27 |
| patersonc | bwh: Presumably this reviewing should just be on "4.x.xx-stable review" threads? | 09:27 |
| * szlin agree | 09:27 | |
| patersonc | toscalix: Sorry, too late! | 09:27 |
| toscalix | np | 09:27 |
| toscalix | we have 3 min left | 09:27 |
| toscalix | go ahead | 09:27 |
| bwh | patersonc: right | 09:28 |
| toscalix | AOB? | 09:28 |
| toscalix | Any Other Business? | 09:28 |
| szlin | bwh: one more question, can you add information like due date for patch reivew? | 09:28 |
| bwh | szlin: OK | 09:29 |
| szlin | thanks | 09:29 |
| szlin | any questions? | 09:29 |
| toscalix | o/ | 09:29 |
| szlin | please | 09:30 |
| toscalix | patersonc: do you have any additional question related with Debian LTS ? | 09:30 |
| patersonc | toscalix: I think I'm done for now. Thanks | 09:30 |
| toscalix | Reminder: today I will move the cip-kernel mirror | 09:31 |
| szlin | if there is no question, I will end the meeting. | 09:31 |
| toscalix | it might not be fast given that gitlab.com is a freemium service and the kernel is a big repo | 09:31 |
| toscalix | _o_ | 09:31 |
| toscalix | done | 09:31 |
| szlin | #endmeeting | 09:32 |
| patersonc | Thanks all | 09:32 |
| szlin | thank you all | 09:32 |
| bwh | toscalix: Is it not just a rename? | 09:32 |
| toscalix | it is but I have never renamed such a big repo | 09:32 |
| toscalix | on gitlab.com | 09:32 |
| bwh | a rename's a rename... I'd expect ti to take the same time | 09:32 |
| toscalix | me too | 09:33 |
| toscalix | but I also expected the mirroring to be straightforward and it was a pain | 09:33 |
| toscalix | need to go | 09:34 |
| bwh | OK, me too | 09:34 |
| patersonc | There are some incoming patches to cip-dev btw if anyone wanted to get started! | 09:36 |
| *** kristerman has quit IRC | 09:59 | |
| toscalix | linux-cip moved | 10:06 |
| rajm | This morning after the successful iwg HC a test with the non-yocto ramdisk appeared to get further; then the usually working HC started failing, I tried various options w/o success and eventually restarted the VM and then the HC worked another VM restart and a non-yocto ramdisk test again got further | 10:36 |
| * rajm wonders if the restarts (or maybe a lava restart) is significant? The test (non passing) output is https://paste.baserock.org/mubonasoro | 10:37 | |
| *** vidda has quit IRC | 10:43 | |
| bwh | rajm: The serial output looks good to me... | 12:19 |
| bwh | rajm: Line 370 suggests that the definition says to look for 'cip#' and not '(initramfs)' | 12:20 |
| bwh | and line 600 confirms that | 12:21 |
| bwh | no, 601 | 12:21 |
| rajm | yes that rings a bell - puzzled why it works with the other ramdisk - looking at the config... | 12:23 |
| bwh | because the other ramdisk sets that as the prompt | 12:24 |
| bwh | initramfs-tools sets the prompt to (initramfs); other initramfs builders can set it to anything else | 12:24 |
| rajm | ah ok | 12:25 |
| patersonc | ha: https://lwn.net/Articles/751461/ | 12:30 |
| rajm | \o/ test passes - though why those other timeouts were happening is still AFAICT unexplained | 12:31 |
| toscalix | patersonc: I can answer | 12:37 |
| patersonc | toscalix: Thanks | 12:38 |
| rajm | and a passed iwg20m test with our initramfs goes to the testing results list | 12:40 |
| toscalix | \o/ | 12:52 |
| toscalix | thanks bwh congrats rajm | 12:52 |
| toscalix | rajm: can you send a mail to cip-dev when the docu is ready about how to test cip kernel with B@D on the renesas board? | 12:54 |
| toscalix | patersonc: trying to recover my password. Changed laptop and cannot find it. It seems my LWN account was associated to a former employee | 12:55 |
| rajm | is that post any merge to master or do you want me to - for the moment - reference the branch | 12:55 |
| toscalix | trying to associating it to my personal mail | 12:55 |
| toscalix | rajm: in my world, there are no branches :-) | 12:56 |
| toscalix | so I will ignore what you just mentioned | 12:56 |
| patersonc | toscalix: doh | 12:56 |
| toscalix | patersonc: I am on it. I will asnwer | 12:56 |
| rajm | so it needs to wait a bit toscalix | 12:56 |
| toscalix | rajm: np.... when ready | 12:56 |
| toscalix | the goal is to send a mail patersonc can forward internally | 12:57 |
| toscalix | for them to try out | 12:57 |
| rajm | I've just done additional tests - ran the non working yaml again and then the working one and both failed - in line with my observation this morning. Not sure how to get it to working apart from `vagrant halt` | 12:58 |
| rajm | no it's failing even after a reboot of the VM - something is fragile! | 13:06 |
| *** patersonc has quit IRC | 14:46 | |
| rajm | still - usually failing - tried patersonc's suggestion of bootm_low=0x41e00000 but without improvement | 15:08 |
| *** rajm has quit IRC | 15:41 | |
| *** toscalix has quit IRC | 15:47 | |
| *** tpollard has quit IRC | 15:48 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!