IRC logs for #cip for Thursday, 2018-04-19

*** kristerman has joined #cip00:24
*** kristerman has quit IRC00:28
*** kristerman has joined #cip01:19
*** kristerman has quit IRC01:23
*** kristerman has joined #cip01:47
*** kristerman has quit IRC01:51
*** kristerman has joined #cip02:41
*** kristerman has quit IRC02:46
*** kristerman has joined #cip03:12
*** kristerman has quit IRC03:16
*** Ystk has joined #cip04:22
*** Ystk has quit IRC04:50
*** patersonc has joined #cip06:21
*** kristerman has joined #cip06:25
*** kristerman has quit IRC06:31
*** rajm has joined #cip07:11
*** kristerman has joined #cip07:15
*** kristerman has quit IRC07:20
*** kristerman has joined #cip07:54
*** kristerman has quit IRC07:58
*** toscalix has joined #cip08:08
* rajm runs health checks on BBB and renesas-iwg20m which work and results emailed to list08:09
toscalixbwh: will you be able to attend to the cip-dev meeting?08:11
*** kristerman has joined #cip08:38
bwhtoscalix: yes I'm here08:42
*** kristerman has quit IRC08:52
toscalixsuddenly I have no access to cip-project mailman08:53
* rajm agrees and wonders what's happened08:54
*** vidda has joined #cip08:56
toscalixnotified to jeff from LF08:59
szlinLet's start the meeting09:00
toscalixszlin: would you conduct the meeting?09:00
toscalixnot sure I can stay the whole meeting09:00
szlin#topic 1. roll call09:00
szlinplease say hi if you're here09:01
* rajm says hi09:01
toscalixhi o/09:01
*** kristerman has joined #cip09:01
szlin#topic 2. CIP kernel maintenance team working model09:01
*** vidda has joined #cip09:02
szlinBen had replied the mail yeserday in cip-dev09:02
szlinhe 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
toscalixshould we use an existing mailing list, a new one or mail directly bwh for pre-reviewing the patches ?09:03
bwhI 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
toscalixI would go for cip-dev with a specific tag on the subject so we can filter09:05
toscalixor similar09:05
patersoncFor 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
toscalixbetter same process/tool than the kernel: mail This is about learning how the kernel does it, isn't it?09:07
bwhThere 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-stable09:07
bwhtoscalix: Some kernel subsystems use patchwork09:08
toscalixfor cip core, I would use what debian use it for the same reason. But this is out of scope09:08
toscalixbwh: LTS?09:08
bwhWhat about it?09:08
patersoncrenesas-soc uses patchwork:
patersoncPatchwork would only be useful for cip, not for LTS review09:09
szlintoscalix: 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 do09:09
toscalixLTS does not use it, right? So I would not use it for this. CIP core, I would consider it09:10
*** HarryYJ_Jhou has joined #cip09:10
bwhtoscalix: Right, stable/longterm branches are managed with a patch queue and mailed out for review09:11
toscalixso that is what needs to be learned/promoted, I think09:11
toscalixI 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+gitlab09:13
toscalix#idea evaluate patchwork for cip-kernel#09:13
szlinback to kernel maintenance, how do we co-work with each others to avoid re-work in the same patch09:14
toscalix#agreed use cip-dev for interinm 4.4-stable patch review09:14
szlinit's FIFO policy in upstream kernel.09:14
bwhszlin: I'm not sure we should initially. Multiple reviews of the same patch may catch more problems!09:15
szlinfair enough09:15
toscalixszlin: I do not think concurrency is an issue in stable :-)09:15
bwhWith 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 agrees09:18
toscalixszlin: are you fine with that?09:19
* szlin agree with that09:19
toscalixare we done with this topic?09:20
szlinso ben, do you mean that you{or others} will send out the patches which are under review to cip-dev09:20
patersoncSo was the plan to forward the stable reviews to cip-dev?09:21
szlinpatersonc: the same question :D09:21
bwhI 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 first09:22
bwhBut 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 already09:23
bwhYou can then either reply to cip-dev or reply-all09:23
bwhHow does that sound?09:24
szlinI think it worth to try09:24
toscalixany potential reviewer around who disagrees?09:25
szlinso that the members reply the result of patches review afterwards09:25
toscalix#agreed interim 4.4-stable patch review process09:26
toscalixquestions about details please send them to cip-dev09:26
toscalixis it worth it to write down somewhere on the wiki this agreement?09:27
patersoncbwh: Presumably this reviewing should just be on "4.x.xx-stable review" threads?09:27
* szlin agree09:27
patersonctoscalix: Sorry, too late!09:27
toscalixwe have 3 min left09:27
toscalixgo ahead09:27
bwhpatersonc: right09:28
toscalixAny Other Business?09:28
szlinbwh: one more question, can you add information like due date for patch reivew?09:28
bwhszlin: OK09:29
szlinany questions?09:29
toscalixpatersonc: do you have any additional question related with Debian LTS ?09:30
patersonctoscalix: I think I'm done for now. Thanks09:30
toscalixReminder: today I will move the cip-kernel mirror09:31
szlinif there is no question, I will end the meeting.09:31
toscalixit might not be fast given that is a freemium service and the kernel is a big repo09:31
patersoncThanks all09:32
szlinthank you all09:32
bwhtoscalix: Is it not just a rename?09:32
toscalixit is but I have never renamed such a big repo09:32
toscalixon gitlab.com09:32
bwha rename's a rename... I'd expect ti to take the same time09:32
toscalixme too09:33
toscalixbut I also expected the mirroring to be straightforward and it was a pain09:33
toscalixneed to go09:34
bwhOK, me too09:34
patersoncThere are some incoming patches to cip-dev btw if anyone wanted to get started!09:36
*** kristerman has quit IRC09:59
toscalixlinux-cip moved10:06
rajmThis 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 further10:36
* rajm wonders if the restarts (or maybe a lava restart) is significant? The test (non passing) output is
*** vidda has quit IRC10:43
bwhrajm: The serial output looks good to me...12:19
bwhrajm: Line 370 suggests that the definition says to look for 'cip#' and not '(initramfs)'12:20
bwhand line 600 confirms that12:21
bwhno, 60112:21
rajmyes that rings a bell - puzzled why it works with the other ramdisk - looking at the config...12:23
bwhbecause the other ramdisk sets that as the prompt12:24
bwhinitramfs-tools sets the prompt to (initramfs); other initramfs builders can set it to anything else12:24
rajmah ok12:25
rajm\o/ test passes - though why those other timeouts were happening is still AFAICT unexplained12:31
toscalixpatersonc: I can answer12:37
patersonctoscalix: Thanks12:38
rajmand a passed iwg20m test with our initramfs goes to the testing results list12:40
toscalixthanks bwh congrats rajm12:52
toscalixrajm: 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
toscalixpatersonc: trying to recover my password. Changed laptop and cannot find it. It seems my LWN account was associated to a former employee12:55
rajmis that post any merge to master or do you want me to - for the moment - reference the branch12:55
toscalixtrying to associating it to my personal mail12:55
toscalixrajm: in my world, there are no branches :-)12:56
toscalixso I will ignore what you just mentioned12:56
patersonctoscalix: doh12:56
toscalixpatersonc: I am on it. I will asnwer12:56
rajmso it needs to wait a bit toscalix12:56
toscalixrajm: np.... when ready12:56
toscalixthe goal is to send a mail patersonc can forward internally12:57
toscalixfor them to try out12:57
rajmI'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
rajmno it's failing even after a reboot of the VM - something is fragile!13:06
*** patersonc has quit IRC14:46
rajmstill - usually failing - tried patersonc's suggestion of  bootm_low=0x41e00000 but without improvement15:08
*** rajm has quit IRC15:41
*** toscalix has quit IRC15:47
*** tpollard has quit IRC15:48

Generated by 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!