Latest | Archives | People | Topics
Latest | Archives | People | Topics
Latest | Archives | People | Topics
|Home | News | RSS Feeds | Mailing Lists | Authors Info | Mirrors | Stalled Traffic|
Table Of Contents
|1.||15 Feb 2004 - 19 Feb 2004||(8 posts)||Strace Test Tool Released|
|2.||16 Feb 2004 - 20 Feb 2004||(5 posts)||Using Sounds Cards For Generic Data Transfers|
|3.||17 Feb 2004 - 25 Feb 2004||(14 posts)||Virtual Ethernet Driver For IBM iSeries And pSeries|
|4.||17 Feb 2004 - 26 Feb 2004||(99 posts)||Intel Vs. AMD x86-64|
|5.||17 Feb 2004 - 22 Feb 2004||(22 posts)||Linux 2.6.3 Released|
|6.||17 Feb 2004 - 22 Feb 2004||(10 posts)||Linux 2.4.25-rc4 Released|
|7.||17 Feb 2004 - 21 Feb 2004||(22 posts)||Linux 2.6.3-mm1 Released|
|8.||18 Feb 2004 - 19 Feb 2004||(4 posts)||UFS2 (And UFS1) Read-Only Patch|
|9.||18 Feb 2004 - 25 Feb 2004||(5 posts)||Sensor Chips SysFS Interface Change|
|10.||18 Feb 2004 - 22 Feb 2004||(9 posts)||Status Of 2.0 Port Of uClinux|
|11.||19 Feb 2004 - 20 Feb 2004||(9 posts)||Hot-Swapping Linux Kernels|
|12.||19 Feb 2004 - 23 Feb 2004||(26 posts)||udev 018 Released; Starting To Be Fully Usable; Some udev Docs|
|13.||20 Feb 2004||(4 posts)||Linux 2.6.3-mm2 Released|
|14.||20 Feb 2004 - 23 Feb 2004||(17 posts)||device-mapper Updates|
|15.||20 Feb 2004 - 23 Feb 2004||(3 posts)||Linux Stability Page Updated|
|16.||20 Feb 2004||(2 posts)||iswraid Update For 2.4|
|17.||22 Feb 2004 - 26 Feb 2004||(37 posts)||List Of fbdev Issues|
|18.||23 Feb 2004 - 25 Feb 2004||(14 posts)||Bluetooth SysFS Support|
|19.||23 Feb 2004 - 26 Feb 2004||(6 posts)||Status Of ATI IXP150 Southbridge Support|
|20.||24 Feb 2004||(1 post)||Libsysfs v1.0.0 Released|
|21.||25 Feb 2004||(5 posts)||New Teletex Decoder SAA5246A Driver|
|22.||25 Feb 2004||(1 post)||Reiser4 Snapshot Against 2.6.3|
|23.||25 Feb 2004 - 26 Feb 2004||(7 posts)||Linux 2.4.26-pre1 Released|
|24.||25 Feb 2004||(1 post)||BitMover Openlogging Server Moved|
|25.||27 Feb 2004 - 1 Mar 2004||(6 posts)||Linux 2.6.4-rc1 Released|
|26.||28 Feb 2004 - 2 Mar 2004||(41 posts)||Status Of pmdisk; Removal Considered|
|27.||29 Feb 2004 - 1 Mar 2004||(9 posts)||FUSE Filstystem Interaction With SELinux|
|28.||29 Feb 2004 - 2 Mar 2004||(22 posts)||Linux 2.6.4-rc1-mm1 Released|
|29.||3 Mar 2004||(6 posts)||Developers Plan kgdb Patch Submission|
Mailing List Stats For This Week
We looked at 4058 posts in 19657K.
There were 936 different contributors. 456 posted more than once. 272 posted last week too.
The top posters of the week were:
1. Strace Test Tool Released
15 Feb 2004 - 19 Feb 2004 (8 posts) Archive Link: "[Announce] Strace Test"
People: Dan Carpenter, David Weinehall, Anton Blanchard, Robert Williamson
Dan Carpenter said:
I'm happy to announce the initial public release of Strace Test. I believe Strace Test is the most aggressive general purpose kernel tester available. Strace Test generally crashes my system within 5 minutes (2.6.1-rc2).
Strace Test uses a modified version of strace 4.5.1. Instead of printing out information about system calls, the modified version calls the syscalls with improper values. A patch and a binary for i386 are included in the strace_test tar ball.
Strace Test uses LTP to generate real world syscalls. Just unpack ltp and type 'make -k'. You don't need to install the test if you don't want to.
The modifications make the test scripts go haywire. To keep the test on track we restart it every 10 seconds. The first script is run as root and it spawns off the test as a test user. Every 10 seconds root kills off all the test user's processes and restarts the test. The actual tests are run with user permissions.
Strace Test is available from: http://184.108.40.206/strace_test.tar.bz2
Test Instructions (for i386) Create a test user Download and untar ltp (ltp.sf.net) Cd to ltp and `make -k` Untar strace_test cd strace_test && ./go_go.sh Enter the path to ltp Enter the test user
Anton Blanchard and Robert Williamson were extremely impressed by this, and David Weinehall also asked, "Pretty please with sprinkles upon, could you stress test a 2.0.40 kernel and report your results to me? While I do not expect the 2.0-kernel to be the paramount of stability, it would be nice to fix any obvious bugs..."
2. Using Sounds Cards For Generic Data Transfers
16 Feb 2004 - 20 Feb 2004 (5 posts) Archive Link: "transferring data through the sound card"
Topics: Modems, Networking, Sound
People: Jamie Lokier, Paulo Marques, Pavel Machek, Michael Clark
Nischal Saxena asked if it were possible to transfer data between two systems, via the sound cards. Jamie Lokier siad, "It's possible using a software modem, but it's much easier to use a network card instead :)" Paulo Marques replied:
Since Nischal didn't specify which port on the sound card he was thinking about, I started to think that a SPDIF digital output / input, would give much better results:
6 channels, 16 bit, 48KHz = 4.6Mbit/s
I don't know enough about the standard digital format and the maximum bandwidth that we could get from a sound card, but in theory we probably could connect the digital input on a sound card to digital output on another card (and vice-versa) and map the whole thing as a network interface :)
Anyway, this is an extremely crazy, time wasting, "just do it if you have loads of time to throw out the window" kind of project, because the cost of ethernet NIC's is extremely low these days.
Elsewhere, Pavel Machek remarked, "I was able to transfer data using dtmf and dtmf decoder (PC beeper to internal microphone of notebook), but with advanced software much better speed should be possible." Michael Clark replied, "I believe it's already being worked on (as a subset of what the GNU radio project is doing - software modulation/demodulation - just removing the requirement for down conversion): http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/gnuradio.html"
3. Virtual Ethernet Driver For IBM iSeries And pSeries
17 Feb 2004 - 25 Feb 2004 (14 posts) Archive Link: "[PATCH][2.6] IBM PowerPC Virtual Ethernet Driver"
People: Santiago Leon, Jeff Garzik
Santiago Leon said:
Here's a patch that adds the inter-partition Virtual Ethernet driver for newer IBM iSeries and pSeries systems:
The patch applies against 2.6.3-rc3...
Jeff, can you formally add this driver to 2.6?... The differences between this driver and the 2.4 driver that you accepted are fairly trivial (i.e. workqueues instead of tasklets)... The architectural additions that I was waiting for have been applied to the mainline tree...
Jeff Garzik accepted the patch; and various folks discussed its technical merits.
4. Intel Vs. AMD x86-64
17 Feb 2004 - 26 Feb 2004 (99 posts) Archive Link: "Intel vs AMD x86-64"
Topics: Assembly, Hyperthreading, Patents
People: Linus Torvalds, Mikael Pettersson, Diego Calleja Garcia, Bryan O'Sullivan, Aaron Lehmann, Herbert Poetzl, Vojtech Pavlik, Jun Nakajima, Adrian Bunk, Pavel Machek, Diego Calleja
Linus Torvalds said:
now that Intel has finally come clean about their x86-64 implementation (see http://www.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/index.htm?iid=techtrends+spotlight_64bit for full details), can somebody write up a list of differences? I know there are people who have had access to the Intel docs for a while now, and obviously Intel is too frigging proud to list the differences explicitly.
From what I can tell from a quick look, it looks like it is basically just the 3DNow vs SSE3 thing, but I assume there are other details too. Can people who have been involved with this make a quick list for the rest of us who only got to see the final details today?
(And I assume there's somebody with a few patches pending..)
Mikael Pettersson said:
From what I can see from these docs, Intel's "IA-32e" is very very close to the natural combination of P4 with AMD64. No hyperlink stuff, but otherwise the same. The local APIC and performance counters should be exactly as in P4 :-)
What about naming? IA-64 is taken, AMD64 is too specific, Intel's "IA-32e" sounds too vague, and I find x86-64 / x86_64 difficult to type. "x64" perhaps?
Diego Calleja Garcia asked, "Does that mean that the opteron-based distros will be able to run their x86-64 kernelspace/userspace in intel micros without modifications, or only the userspace?" And Bryan O'Sullivan replied, "Presumably there will be some minor kernel modifications needed, but Intel's public position is that going forward, there's only one 64-bit kernel and userspace needed for both platforms."
Elsewhere, regarding naming, Aaron Lehmann suggested, "I feel that AMD64 is appropriate. We've been calling all the AMD/Cyrix chips IA32 processors, and this is no different." But Mikael replied, "Actually I would call them x86, never IA32."
Elsewhere, Linus said:
x86-64 it is. Maybe you can remap one of your function keys to send the sequence ;)
This whole "ia32" crap has always been ridiculous - nobody has _ever_ called an x86 anything but x86, and Intel is just making it worse by adding random illogical letters to the end.
In contrast, x86-64 tells you _exactly_ what it's all about, and is what the kernel has always called the architecture anyway.
Herbert Poetzl asked, "so the current x86_64 will be changed to x86-64 or will there be x86_64 and x86-64? probably I missed something important, but AMD64 seems to be labeled x86_64 in 2.4 and 2.6" Linus replied:
No. The filesystem policy _tends_ to be that dashes and spaces are turned into underscores when used as filenames. Don't ask me why (well, the space part is obvious, since real spaces tend to be a pain to use on the command line, but don't ask me why people tend to conver a dash to an underscore).
So the real name is (and has always been, as far as I can tell) x86-64.
Actually, I'm a bit disgusted at Intel for not even _mentioning_ AMD in their documentation or their releases, so I'd almost be inclined to rename the thing as "AMD64" just to give credit where credit is due. However, it's just not worth the pain and confusion.
Any Intel people on this list: tell your managers to be f*cking ashamed of themselves. Just because Intel didn't care about their customers and has been playing with some other 64-bit architecture that nobody wanted to use is no excuse for not giving credit to AMD for what they did with x86-64.
(I'm really happy Intel finally got with the program, but it's pretty petty to not even mention AMD in the documentation and try to make it look like it was all their idea).
Vojtech Pavlik remarked:
As far as I know, the real reason for the underscore in x86_64 in Linux is that autoconf/configure hate dashes in arch names, because of this notation:
If a dash were used, the string would be unparseable without prior knowledge of all arch names.
Elsewhere, Adrian Bunk suggested using 'AMD64' as the name, since that was what was used in SuSE, RedHat, and Debian, but Linus replied:
Well, the thing is, I _like_ a vendor-neutral name.
I think it's important to have multiple sources for a chip, and I think one of the problems with IA-64 was that it was a locked-in chip with patents and no serious competition internally (ignore the Intel mouthing about "open").
The x86 is so great partly because there's been real competition. So I think it's very important to x86-64 to have real competition to make sure nobody gets too dishonest.
So AMD64 is a bad name, partly for the same reason IA32 is a horrible name (and who have you ever heard use the IA32 name except for people who are paid to do so by Intel?)
What I found so irritating is that _hours_ after the Intel announcement, people were _still_ confused about whether the new intel chip was actually compatible with AMD's chips. Why the f*ck not just come out and say so, and talk about it? It took people actually reading the manuals (which didn't mention it either) to convince some people on the architecture newsgroups that yes, "ia32e" was really the same as "amd64" except in the small details that have always set Intel and AMD apart.
So I don't really want to change the name. "x86-64" is a good name. I just wish there was more honesty involved, and less friggin *POSTURING*.
Jun Nakajima from Intel replied:
Sorry for the miscommunication. The page http://www.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/faq.htm says at the _bottom_ at least:
Q9: Is it possible to write software that will run on Intel's processors with 64-bit extension technology, and AMD's 64-bit capable processors?
A9: With both companies designing entirely different architectures, the question is whether the operating system and software ported to each processor will run on the other processor, and the answer is yes in most cases.
Pavel Machek asked for a list of differences between amd64 and ia32e, and Jun replied:
Other than the standard IA-32 differences (eg. HT, SSE3, Intel Enhanced SpeedStep, etc.), there are few differences between the implementations of IA-32e and AMD64. The software visible ones are:
Fast system calls:
Syscall/sysret is supported only in 64-bit mode (not in compatibility mode). Sysenter/Sysexit is supported in both 64-bit and compatible mode.
If you look at Table 2-8 of Volume 1, you will find IA-32e specific things, including, GenuineIntel, HT, SSE3, monitor/mwait, Intel Enhanced SpeedStep, and cmpxchg16b.
The function 8000_0001h doesn't duplicate standard-feature bits from function 1 in EDX. It sets only the new features that are implemented.
Not all MSRs are architectural, and IA-32e does not implement SYSCFG, TOP_MEM, TOP_MEM2, for example. MSR usage should be vendor specific and be guarded with CPUID.Model
IA-32e always saves all of the FP state on FXSAVE/FXRSTOR. Does not support FXSAVE/FXRSTOR with reduced FP state.
IA-32e supports microcode update as the 32-bit mode does, as you already found the discussions in the mailing list.
NX (No-Execute) bit:
Initial implementation will not support the NX bit.
BSF/BSR when source is 0 & operand size is 32:
In 64-bit mode, the processor sets ZF, and the upper 32 bits of the destination are undefined. Should always check the ZF or do not use 32-bit operand size.
Near branch with 66H prefix:
As documented in PRM the behavior is implementation specific and should avoid using 66H prefix on near branches.
Not supported in IA-32e
3DNow instructions (including prefecthw or prefetch with the opcode 0f 0d)
5. Linux 2.6.3 Released
17 Feb 2004 - 22 Feb 2004 (22 posts) Archive Link: "Linux 2.6.3"
Topics: Kernel Release Announcement
People: Linus Torvalds
Linus Torvalds announced Linux 2.6.3, saying:
Ok, it's out.
There were some minimal changes relative to the last -rc4, mostly some configuration and build fixes, but a few important one-liners too.
6. Linux 2.4.25-rc4 Released
17 Feb 2004 - 22 Feb 2004 (10 posts) Archive Link: "Linux 2.4.25-rc4"
Topics: Power Management: ACPI
People: Marcelo Tosatti, Willy Tarreau, Pavel Machek, Hilko Bengen
Marcelo Tosatti announced:
Here goes release candidate 4, including a few small fixes.
If nothing bad shows up, this will become final.
Willy Tarreau replied, "I would have liked to see the ACPI poweroff fix I sent a few days ago, but Len said he doesn't have time to review it this week. It's a shame since at least two of my machines which powered off correctly with very older ACPI versions now need it, so I don't think I'm the only one in this case :-(" Marcelo took a look at the fix, and said it looked OK and would probably get into 2.4.26-pre1. Willy was happy about this, and Pavel Machek remarked, "I bet it will create "machine will reboot instead of poweroff" on some strange machine.... Perhaps it fixes more machines than it breaks, but it will probably break some." Willy asked if Pavel had a clearer idea of what would break, but Pavel said simply, "No, but this is ACPI. No matter how simple change looks, it will break something."
Elsewhere, Hilko Bengen asked why his I-Surf patch hadn't been included in 2.4.25-rc4. He said, "Ok, the bug has been there for ages and, being an ISA card, the I-Surf is probably not used that much any more... Was there anything wrong with the patch I sent?" Marcelo said he thought the patch looked fine, and would probably be in 2.4.26-pre1. Hilko was pleased with this, and offered another small patch in the same area.
7. Linux 2.6.3-mm1 Released
17 Feb 2004 - 21 Feb 2004 (22 posts) Archive Link: "2.6.3-mm1"
Topics: Big Memory Support, Device Mapper, FS: ext3, Framebuffer, Kernel Release Announcement
People: Andrew Morton, Andi Kleen, Joe Thornber, Bill Davidsen, Brandon Low
Andrew Morton announced 2.6.3-mm1, saying:
Added the dm-crypt driver: a crypto layer for device-mapper.
People need to test and use this please. There is documentation at http://www.saout.de/misc/dm-crypt/.
We should get this tested and merged up. We can then remove the nasty bio remapping code from the loop driver. This will remove the current ordering guarantees which the loop driver provides for journalled filesystems. ie: ext3 on cryptoloop will no longer be crash-proof.
After that we should remove cryptoloop altogether.
It's a bit late but cyptoloop hasn't been there for long anyway and it doesn't even work right with highmem systems (that part is fixed in -mm).
Andi Kleen said, "While 2.3 and 2.4 have broken the on disk format of crypto loop several times (each time to a new "improved and ultimately perfect format") I don't think that's acceptable for a mature OS anymore." He asked, "Is it guaranteed that this thing will be disk format compatible to cryptoloop?" Andrew replied, "Allegedly. Of course, doing this will simply retain crypto-loop's security weaknesses." Andi replied:
AFAIK the two big security weaknesses in most version of cryptoloop are: (note that some versions have it fixed with various hacks)
The first can be addressed in an crypto API module e.g. with an hashed IV, but it needs a stable IV format from dm-crypto (that is one of the things I asked for)
The second one is more a user space problem. However to solve it you need metadata. It would be much nicer if it was possible to store it on the block device directly (with a special losetup flag for compatibility). Otherwise you get into nasty chicken and egg problems with fully encrypted systems.
Supporting metadata can be quite simple - e.g. a standard header on the first blocks that has a length and a number of records with unique IDs. And the kernel driver would need to skip over these headers.
Joe Thornber pointed out, "The target already takes an offset into the device, so you have what you want." Andi replied, "Ok fine. The only requirement would be compatible IVs then." Andrew wanted some clarification, asking, "Would it be correct to say that until someone does this development, dm-crypt has the same vulnerabilities as cryptoloop? Or is there some different way of using dm-crypt which is incompatible with cryptoloop, but is more secure?" Andi replied, "It all depends on what the crypto API module and the user space utils implement. That is why calling it dm-crypt is misleading, dm-filter or somesuch would be better." But he added that anything more secure than cryptoloop would have to be incompatible with it.
Completely elsewhere, Bill Davidsen objected to removing cryptoloop, saying:
What definition of "stable kernel" do you use which includes removal of features which were reasons to migrate to 2.6 from 2.4? This change would mean having to add dm to the kernel which otherwise doesn't use it, carry dm utilities on the system whcih are otherwise unneeded, and train people to use and not use dm.
I expect major things to change in a development series, but less major things than this have been pushed to 2.7, why is this being forced in?
Brandon Low seconded this objection, but Andrew was unimpressed by either. He said:
Why should we retain crypto capabilities which have widely understood vulnerabilities?
We mainly want to remove the bio remapping stuff from the loop driver because it's horrid and deadlocks under heavy memory pressure. Maybe we can leave crytoloop there with big "kindergarten crypto - do not use" labels all over it.
the point is that the new dmcrypto is only in -mm and cryptoloop is in both trees, those of us developing applications based on cryptoloop don't have a mainline kernel to even start testing dmcrypto against in the 2.6 series, so it is more a political issue than a technical issue which makes the removal of a feature like this from the 2.6 series a bad thing... (In my humble never contributed to the kernel opinion)
Technically speaking there is no doubt that you are correct to want to remove cryptoloop... but if people are depending on that support to stay in a stable kernel and are developing based on it and don't have the time to learn dm or dmcrypto and redesign whatever may need redesigning to use it, it strikes me as rude to pull that support.
But Andrew came back with:
This is actually an argument for removing cryptolooop. People are developing against a crypto infrastructure which has well-known weaknesses.
Pulling it out is an excellent way of communicating this fact. Right now, we're just deluding people.
Brandon had to admit that Andrew had a point, though he was still unhappy about it.
8. UFS2 (And UFS1) Read-Only Patch
18 Feb 2004 - 19 Feb 2004 (4 posts) Archive Link: "[PATCH] [2.6] UFS2 Read Only Patch"
Topics: BSD: FreeBSD
People: Niraj Kumar, Andrew Morton
Niraj Kumar said to Andrew Morton:
Please apply this patch . They provide the bare minimum read-only support for ufs2 variant (from FreeBSD 5.x ) of the UFS filesystem .
ooh, I see you have a mkfs.ufs there. Does it support UFS1 as well?
Does current UFS support little-endian machines? If so, has this code been tested on a little-endian host? The code _looks_ OK, but one does need to test...
Has the patched filesystem been regression tested against a UFS1 filesystem?
Niraj confirmed that his patch did indeed support UFS1. He added that regression testing had been minimal, "Only some most basic (mount , read ) functionality" .
Andrew also had severe issues with Niraj's coding style, and Niraj posted an updated patch.
9. Sensor Chips SysFS Interface Change
18 Feb 2004 - 25 Feb 2004 (5 posts) Archive Link: "[RFC 2.6] sensor chips sysfs interface change (long)"
Topics: FS: procfs, FS: sysfs, I2C
People: Jean Delvare, Pavel Machek, Greg KH
Jean Delvare said:
I plan to make rather important changes to the sysfs interface of I2C chip drivers in Linux 2.6. The topic has already been discussed on the lm_sensors mailing list, bug Greg KH suggested that I should explain my intentions here too, so here I am.
The sysfs interface to I2C chips as it exists in Linux 2.6 isn't that bad. It has a number of benefits over the old procfs interface we used during the times of 2.2 and 2.4 kernels. The main change (apart from the pseudo-filesystem change itself) is that we opted for a one-value-per-file policy, with the obvious goal to make this interface more chip-independent. We also decided that all values, which are mainly fixed point values, would all use the same number of decimal places, again to make it less chip-dependent.
A few changes were made recently to enhance the chip-independency, such as differentiating between minimum temperatures and hysteresis temperatures.
The problem is that there are still several files that need you to know additional information about the chip to properly use them. Examples of that:
There is a second, less important problem. The file naming scheme was not chosen in accordance with what was done in previous kernels and libsensors, the sensors information access library. When we would refer to "temp1_max" before, the corresponding sysfs file is now "temp_max1". I say it is less important because it doesn't affect the chip-independency of the current interface. Still it requires additional code in libsensors (not much, admittedly), makes "ls" group the sysfs files in an irrelevant order, and is likely to make sysfs the future interface "discovery" code a bit more complex.
THE REASONS FOR CHANGE
Although the problem detailed above probably makes it clear why I want to alter the sysfs interface, I think some of you will be interested in more details on why I want them to occur, and more specifically why I want the changes to be made as soon as possible, although in a stable series.
My ultimate goal is to make it possible to write a completely chip-independent sensors library. The way things were done so far, adding support for a new hardware monitoring chip always requires to update the library and user-space programs (such as "sensors"). At the moment, 75% of the libsensors code is chipset specific, and almost 90% of the "sensors" user-space tool code is. This demonstrates how much code we could save, would we have a truly chip-independant sysfs interface. This also means that the library and user-space tools wouldn't have to be updated with each new chip driver (with the exception of the sensors.conf configuration file).
Since only 30% of the sensors chip drivers have been ported to Linux 2.6 yet, I think that if we are to change the interface, we better do it before porting the other 70% (well, obviously less since some of them will probably never be ported).
Also, were we to wait for Linux 2.7 before starting these changes, as some of you might suggest, this would mean that the new sensors library would be either usable only there (which basically means maybe 3 years or so before a monitoring application can rely on this library only), or it would have to support both the 2.6 and 2.7 sysfs standards. This is likely to make the code be much more complex, for basically no benefit.
In fact, I don't feel bad to change the standard now because it is hardly established yet. It isn't as if I were planing to change a long-established standard. With each new Linux 2.6 release since .0, we have been updating the standard and modified the drivers to comply with it, so that we had to release a new libsensors each time. One more change won't hurt much more, especially if this is this ensures this is the last one. I also insist on the fact that, since the sysfs interface is not chip-independent yet, applications are discouraged to access the sysfs interface directly, and should rely on libsensors instead. Since we keep the library in sync with the Linux 2.6 kernel (and will continue to do so), such applications are not affected by the changes (except that libsensors has to be updated), even the relatively important one I propose to make here.
I propose a three-step plan.
Change the base scheme (e.g. temp_min1 -> temp1_min). This is the more important change (in the sense it affects all drivers and the libsensors library) and correspond to the second problem listed above.
Benefits of the new naming scheme are:
Change the hysteresis names (temp1_hyst -> temp1_max_hyst). Only some drivers are impacted. Changes required to the library as well.
Increase the chip-independency by making it clear which limits the hysteresis do apply to. The lm80 driver *needs* this since it has two hysteresis values per temperature channel.
Add splitted alarm files. This doesn't break the interface (these are new files), but on the other hand needs that we think about it a bit more so that our choices are extendable and correct for all known drivers.
I would like to make steps 1 and 2 occur as soon as in Linux 2.6.4 (i.e. immediately), because they break the interface. Step 3 is required for a fully chip-independent interface (and future library), but doesn't break the interface and cannot be used by the current libsensors, so we can give ourself some delay.
I will of course make the changes everywhere at once (all drivers and library, documentation) so that applications using libsensors won't be affected at all.
For those interested, the original thread on the lm_sensors mailing-list
is available here:
And an older one on the same topic:
Pavel Machek suggested, "Sounds good, what you probably need is to submit patch doing step #1 to Andrew" [Morton] "and see what happens..." Jean replied, "Patches are on their way to Andrew as we speak, thanks to Greg :)"
10. Status Of 2.0 Port Of uClinux
18 Feb 2004 - 22 Feb 2004 (9 posts) Archive Link: "[PATCH]: linux-2.6.3-uc0 (MMU-less fixups)"
People: David Weinehall, Greg Ungerer
Greg Ungerer announced an update of uClinux, and David Weinehall asked, "Any plans for a 2.6-version of the ARM-support?" Greg replied, "Yes. There is some code available now, although it is not complete and doesn't fully work yet. It really needs more cleaning up before it will be interresting or useful to anyone." David asked, "How's the status of the 2.0-port of uClinux, btw? Is it unintrusive enough to be considered for a 2.0-merge?" Greg replied, "Hmm, probably not. It is no where near as clean as the 2.6 merge. It could be cleaned up, but no one seems to interrested in doing the work." David said, "Well, if there are users and interest, I could do at least some of the work. Since I've already done some work with 2.0 uClinux, and since I'm the 2.0 maintainer, I do have some experience ;-)" And Greg replied, "There are still users. I was planning on merging in your 2.0.40 code sometime soon, to bring the uClinux 2.0 sources up to date at the very least. But if you feel like doing it, that would be good too :-)"
11. Hot-Swapping Linux Kernels
19 Feb 2004 - 20 Feb 2004 (9 posts) Archive Link: "Hot kernel change"
Topics: Microkernels: Mach, User-Mode Linux
People: Jim Richardson
Carlos Silva asked if it were possible to switch the kernel of a running system, without a reboot. Jim Richardson suggested, "What you could do, is use MkLinux, (is that still around?) It had the ability to run simultaneous kernels, IIRC, then you might be able to gradually push over new processess to the new kernel, and eventually, kill the old one." Carlos got very excited about this, and Jim added:
I have no idea if it is still in development. To be clear, it doesn't allow you to simply replace a kernel, but to add a second one, and possibly, to start transferring over tasks to it.
You can do much the same thing with user mode linux also. Again, not a kernel replacement in that sense, but something similar, sort of.
12. udev 018 Released; Starting To Be Fully Usable; Some udev Docs
19 Feb 2004 - 23 Feb 2004 (26 posts) Archive Link: "[ANNOUNCE] udev 018 release"
Topics: FS: devfs, FS: sysfs, Hot-Plugging, Klibc, Version Control
People: Greg KH, Michael Buesch, Kay Sievers
Greg KH said:
I've released the 018 version of udev. It can be found at:
rpms built against Red Hat FC2-test1 are available at:
with the source rpm at:
udev allows users to have a dynamic /dev and provides the ability to
have persistent device names. It uses sysfs and /sbin/hotplug and runs
entirely in userspace. It requires a 2.6 kernel with CONFIG_HOTPLUG
enabled to run. Please see the udev FAQ for any questions about it:
For any udev vs devfs questions anyone might have, please see:
Major changes from the 017 version:
In all, there is nothing hugely major in this release, but any current users of udev will want this version for all of the bugfixes if for nothing else.
Thanks to everyone who has send me patches for this release, a full list of everyone, and their changes is below.
udev development is done in a BitKeeper repository located at:
Daily snapshots of udev from the BitKeeper tree can be found at:
If anyone ever wants a tarball of the current bk tree, just email me.
He replied to himself, saying:
As of this release, I've been running with udev managing my /dev for me exclusively on my main email and development machine. This is a major milestone for udev and it proves that it is a viable solution.
I'd like to say thanks to everyone who has made this possible to do:
udev development isn't done, but for anyone who has not checked it out yet, I suggest you do so. I'll post a small HOWTO that shows how to configure udev to manage your /dev without any problems or legacy issues (the 2.4 kernel will still work just fine on the same box.)
If anyone has any suggestions for things that are lacking in udev, please let me and the linux-hotplug-devel mailing list. This especially goes for any distro developers who are trying to integrate it into their systems.
Michael Buesch replied:
I'm running udev for some time now on my main development machine and it works (almost) great. Thanks Greg and all the others who made it possible!
But I've a little issue left. My parallel port doesn't show up in /udev. I guess it's because of missing sysfs support? I'm running linux-2.6.3.
I did not find an entry for the parallel port in sysfs. If I create the device node manually I can access lp.
Greg replied, "Yes, that driver has not been converted to use sysfs yet. It's on the list of drivers to convert, only 162 more to go... :("
Elsewhere, Greg said:
Here's a small document that I've added to the udev tarball that explains how I managed to get udev to manage my /dev tree on a Red Hat Fedora based machine. All you Gentoo developers can just laugh as it's already integrated into your distro.
Any users of other distros, feel free to send me updates to this to show how to do it for yours. Any distro maintainers, feel free to just integrate udev into your system so this kind of tweaking isn't necessary :)
He gave the document:
HOWTO use udev to manage /dev
This document describes one way to get udev working on a Fedora-development machine to manage /dev. This procedure may be used to get udev to manage /dev on other distros, if you modify some of the steps.
This will only work if you use a 2.6 based kernel, preferably the most recent one. This does not prevent your machine from using a 2.4 kernel, if you boot into one, udev will not run and your old /dev will be present with no changes needed.
NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE
This is completely unsupported. Attempting to do this may cause your machine to be unable to boot properly. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Always have a rescue disk or CD handy to allow you to fix up any errors that may occur.
NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE
Build and install udev as specified in the README that comes with udev. I recommend using the following build options to get the smallest possible binaries:
make USE_KLIBC=true USE_LOG=false DEBUG=false
disable udev from the boot process by running:
chkconfig udev off
chkconfig --del udev
place the start_udev script somewhere that is accessible by your initscripts. I placed it into /etc/rc.d with the following command:
copy extras/start_udev /etc/rc.d/
make sure the /etc/udev/udev.conf file lists the udev_root as /dev. It should contain the following line in order to work properly.
If anyone has any problems with this, please let me, and the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list know.
A big thanks go out to the Gentoo developers for showing me that this is possible to do.
13. Linux 2.6.3-mm2 Released
20 Feb 2004 (4 posts) Archive Link: "2.6.3-mm2"
Topics: Kernel Release Announcement
People: Andrew Morton, Ari Pollak
Andrew Morton announced 2.6.3-mm2, saying:
Ari Pollak asked, "It seems that include/linux/modsetver.h was removed, which means that I can no longer build the madwifi driver. Is there something that's supposed to replace this?" But there was no reply.
14. device-mapper Updates
20 Feb 2004 - 23 Feb 2004 (17 posts) Archive Link: "device-mapper patchset"
Topics: Device Mapper, Ioctls
People: Joe Thornber
Joe Thornber said:
Here's another device mapper update, some of these are quite big patches, so I'll run through the list:
We've been using this code for many months (years?). Needed for the more complicated targets.
Remove the version-1 ioctl interface
This didn't get in last time I submitted it. Leave it out if you still disagree.
Audit for list_for_each_*entry*
Trivial, please merge
List targets ioctl
Adds a command that lets tools query the kernel to see what targets/versions are available.
People really want this, so I'm probably pushing it sooner than I'd like. It would be good if it got a wider audience in the -mm tree or as an experimental target in vanilla.
15. Linux Stability Page Updated
20 Feb 2004 - 23 Feb 2004 (3 posts) Archive Link: "[Announce] New Updates to the Linux Stability Page"
Topics: Version Control
People: Craig Thomas
Craig Thomas said:
The Linux Stability page continues to post test result data for the post 2.6.0 kernels. http://www.osdl.org/projects/26lnxstblztn/results/
Below lists some recent changes to the page (in case you haven't visited in a while).
If anyone knows of other useful test result information or information providing a current state of the Linux kernel that can be linked from this page, let me know and I'll add the link.
16. iswraid Update For 2.4
20 Feb 2004 (2 posts) Archive Link: "Announce: updated "iswraid" (ICH5R/ICH6R ataraid sub-driver) for 2.4.25"
Topics: Disk Arrays: RAID, Disks: IDE, Disks: SCSI, Serial ATA
People: Martins Krikis, Jeff Garzik
Martins Krikis said:
Attached to this email is a gzipped patch for the next revision of the Intel Software RAID driver "iswraid" (which is an ataraid subdriver) for the 2.4.x series kernels. The patch is taken against kernel 2.4.25 with Jeff Garzik's 2.4.25-libata1.patch already applied. (This driver is useless without libata.) My apologies about the size and the binary nature of this attachment.
Also attached is a very small patch that enables (partial?) Intel's ICH6R chipset's SATA support in the ata_piix driver. I am sure that Jeff can enable this properly (or perhaps already has), but for those who find the chipset unidentified, this may be a quick fix. ICH6R is then usable in both the IDE and RAID modes.
The driver is intended to be used with Intel's ICH5R/ICH6R chipsets. Configuration of RAID volumes is done from the Option ROM. This "iswraid" driver differs from the other ataraid sub-drivers in that it operates on SCSI block devices rather than the ATA/IDE ones. The "ata_piix" driver (part of libata1) presents the SATA disks connected to ICH5R/ICH6R chipsets as SCSI disks. The "iswraid" driver is considered experimental, use at your own risk.
Thanks to Boji Kannanthanam for answering my questions and to Jeff Garzik for providing a great low level driver to utilize.
He added that this wasn't his own contribution, but was provided by Intel.
17. List Of fbdev Issues
22 Feb 2004 - 26 Feb 2004 (37 posts) Archive Link: "fbdv/fbcon pending problems"
Topics: Framebuffer, Version Control
People: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Benjamin Herrenschmidt reported:
Here's a list of pending issues with fbdev (either upstream or in the fbdev bk treee), I figured posting it here may help getting more people on those issues as my time is sparse and I suppose James too.
Ok, that's all that comes to my mind right now, help is welcome :)
18. Bluetooth SysFS Support
23 Feb 2004 - 25 Feb 2004 (14 posts) Archive Link: "Please back out the bluetooth sysfs support"
Topics: FS: sysfs
People: Christoph Hellwig, David S. Miller, Marcel Holtmann
Christoph Hellwig said:
The patch '[Bluetooth] Initial sysfs and device class support', is the usual misguided sysfs conversion attempt levaing oopsable races, so please back it out until the bluetooth folks have understood and cared for the lifetime rule issues of using the driver model.
Guys, if you do use the driver model you have to adhere to it's life time rules. And that's most importantely you _must_ free the device only in it's ->release routine.
And no, the code doesn't warn about the lack of a release method only that everyone adds an empty one, sigh..
David S. Miller said, "Ok Christoph, I'm taking to Marcel about what we'll do, and thus it'll be resolved within the next day one way or another. Thanks for pointing this out."
A few posts down the line, Marcel Holtmann said, "I converted all Bluetooth drivers to allocate the hci_dev structure and it will be freed with the release function of the Bluetooth class. The patch looks big, but most of them are simple changes. Please review it before I am submitting it to Dave." After some discussion, Christoph and others sounded off in favor of the patch, and the thread ended.
19. Status Of ATI IXP150 Southbridge Support
23 Feb 2004 - 26 Feb 2004 (6 posts) Archive Link: "Support for ATI IXP150 Southbridge"
Topics: Disks: IDE, USB
People: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Phil Thompson asked if anyone was working on adding Linux kernel support for the ATI IXP150 Southbridge, particularly the IDE and USB devices. Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz replied, "IDE support should be added soon (thanks to ATI)." Phil volunteered to help test the code, and Bartlomiej said, "You can find experimental (I have not tested it!) driver for 2.6.3 kernel at: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/bart/atiixp_ide/atiixp_ide-2.6.3-1.patch. It was written by Hui Yu <email@example.com>, additional fixes/cleanups by me." Phil tried it out, and had good success; meanwhile, Bartlomiej posted an updated patch at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/bart/atiixp_ide/atiixp_ide-2.6.3-2.patch.
20. Libsysfs v1.0.0 Released
24 Feb 2004 (1 post) Archive Link: "[ANNOUNCE] Libsysfs v1.0.0 release"
Topics: FS: devfs, FS: sysfs
People: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli said:
Release 1.0.0 of Libsysfs is now available as part of the sysfsutils package at:
Libsysfs provides APIs to access the sysfs filesystem for device information.
Major changes in this release include:
udev has been shipping with more or less the latest code for quite a few releases now.
Thanks to everyone who have been using the library and providing valuable feedback.
21. New Teletex Decoder SAA5246A Driver
25 Feb 2004 (5 posts) Archive Link: "[ANNOUNCE] new driver for teletext decoder SAA5246A"
People: Michael Geng, Andrew Morton
Michael Geng said:
I would like to introduce a new device driver for the I2C based Videotext/Teletext decoder SAA5246A from Philips. The interface is identical to the existing driver for the SAA5249 chip. User programs can access these devices via /dev/vtx0 ... /dev/vtx31.
Templete was drivers/media/video/saa5249.c, some of the SAA5246A functionality was taken from the original driver from Martin Buck (http://home.pages.de/~videotext/). In order to make the driver sources easier to understand I added lots of symbolic constants related to the data sheet of the SAA5246A from Philips.
The driver is available as a patch to the linux kernel version 2.6.3 from http://www.michaelgeng.de/linux/saa5246a-2.6.3.patch
I know that today's TV cards do no more have such a teletext processor chip on board, they use the CPU for decoding videotext pages. This is much faster if you want to extract all the pages from a TV station for reading like a journal. I also wanted to change to the vbi interface but after some trial I went back to decoding via SAA5246A because there were more errors in the pages decoded with the vbi interface than with the vtx interface using a SAA5246A. I don't know why. And have you tried to capture a special subpage from a page that contains 10 suppages or more? When it is finally transmitted after 10 Minutes you will have to wait for another 10 Minutes if your CPU missed it. According to my experience a teletext processor will more probably capture the page.
Of courde I have tested the driver both as a module and compiled into the kernel. It is licensed under the GPL.
After some back-and-forth with Andrew Morton, he made an update, and posted a new location. Andrew was pleased, and said he'd accept the patch.
22. Reiser4 Snapshot Against 2.6.3
25 Feb 2004 (1 post) Archive Link: "Latest Reiser4 Snapshot"
People: Hans Reiser
Hans Reiser said:
new reiser4 snapshot against 2.6.3 kernel is available at
It contains bug fixes and stability improvements. On-disk format is compatible with the previous snapshot. Also,
In "standard" configuration reiser4 is stable except for a multiple umount/mount issue we are still analyzing. See the READ.ME file for not-well-supported features and options.
Hopefully our next snapshot will be ready for inclusion, and hopefully it is just a few days away.
23. Linux 2.4.26-pre1 Released
25 Feb 2004 - 26 Feb 2004 (7 posts) Archive Link: "Linux 2.4.26-pre1"
Topics: Power Management: ACPI
People: Marcelo Tosatti
Marcelo Tosatti said:
Here goes -pre1.
It contains a big SCTP merge (to match 2.6 API), networking updates, network driver updates (including the addition of nVidia Force driver).
Also includes ACPI upstream merge, amongst others.
24. BitMover Openlogging Server Moved
25 Feb 2004 (1 post) Archive Link: "[BK] openlogging has moved"
Topics: Version Control
People: Larry McVoy
Larry McVoy said:
We've moved the openlogging server back to San Francisco and updated the DNS entries. BK users should be just fine but if anything appears strange let us know.
One side effect of this is we're making the web pages work again, should be going today or tomorrow.
25. Linux 2.6.4-rc1 Released
27 Feb 2004 - 1 Mar 2004 (6 posts) Archive Link: "Linux 2.6.4-rc1"
People: Linus Torvalds
Linus Torvalds said:
Ok, as usual, there was a lot of stuff for the -rc1, but as seems to be more and more true it is mainly in the "periphery".
This is a big patch, but the bulk of it is a long-overdue MIPS update, and the (working) HFS/HFS+ filesystem update (total rewrite), and ISDN updates. And some large s390 driver updates too, for that matter.
So please keep bigger updates to yourself, and let's calm this down.
26. Status Of pmdisk; Removal Considered
28 Feb 2004 - 2 Mar 2004 (41 posts) Archive Link: "Dropping CONFIG_PM_DISK?"
Topics: Software Suspend
People: Pavel Machek, Karol Kozimor, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Pavel Machek asked, "Would there be any major screaming if I tried to drop CONFIG_PM_DISK? It seems noone is maintaining it, equivalent functionality is provided by swsusp, and it is confusing users..." Benjamin Herrenschmidt and others felt that there was some sense in keeping the code, but when Pavel asked him if he would be willing to maintain it, Benjamin said no. Pavel replied, "Well, unless someone steps up, I guess I'll just let it bitrot, and when its broken enough, I'll attempt removal. I really do not have time to maintain two implementations..."
Elsewhere, Karol Kozimor said of CONFIG_PM_DISK, "It may be ugly, it may be unmaintained, but I get the impression that it works for some people for whom swsusp doesn't. So unless swsusp works for everyone or Nigel's swsusp2 is merged, I'd suggest leaving that in." Pavel asked for more information about when pmdisk worked in a situation when swsusp did not. A number of folks offered their experiences, although it was clear that neither mechanism was perfect.
27. FUSE Filstystem Interaction With SELinux
29 Feb 2004 - 1 Mar 2004 (9 posts) Archive Link: "[SELINUX] Handle fuse binary mount data."
People: James Morris, Christoph Hellwig, Andrew Morton, H. Peter Anvin
James Morris said, "This patch ensures that fuse filesystems are able to be mounted with SELinux enabled." Christoph Hellwig took a look at the patch and made an ugly face at a bit of code that addresses specific filesystems directly. He said, "Umm, binary mount data is bad enough, but hardcoding filesystem-depend code in selinux is just bogus.." Andrew Morton added, "Yes, it's rather awkward. Could we do something such as passing a new mount flag in from userspace? Add a new flag alongside MS_SYNCHRONOUS, MS_REMOUNT and friends?" H. Peter Anvin said the best thing would be a flag exported by any registered filesystem. James Morris suggested that the problem seemed "like a property of the filesystem type: perhaps add FS_BINARY_MOUNTDATA to fs_flags for such filesystems, per the patch below. We also need to change one of the LSM hook arguments." H. Peter agreed.
28. Linux 2.6.4-rc1-mm1 Released
29 Feb 2004 - 2 Mar 2004 (22 posts) Archive Link: "2.6.4-rc1-mm1"
Topics: Kernel Release Announcement, POSIX
People: Andrew Morton, Christoph Hellwig, Bill Davidsen
Andrew Morton announced 2.6.4-rc1-mm1, saying:
Added the POSIX message queue implementation. We're still stitching together a decent description of all of this. Reference information is at
A fair amount of work against the page reclaim code. Mainly reorganisation and simplification of various little glitches. This means that a few of the optimisations which were in 2.6.3-mm4 were broken and were dropped. But this is a better basis upon which to reintroduce them.
Performance, however, seems similar to 2.6.3-mm4 in a few tests. Inter-zone balancing is much better than 2.6.3 but still could be improved a little.
Slab reclaim balancing is improved, however with some (artificial) workloads slab is still being a problem because of tremendous internal fragmentation problems: 6% occupancy of the pages which are allocated to dcache, for example. More work is needed to account for this.
I tested the swapout code with 7.2G of tmpfs pagecache on a 7G machine. The rotate_reclaimable_page() logic seems to work fine here - only 200M of memory was added to swapcache and was swapped out.
The contents of the broken-out/ directory are now available in the 2.6.4-rc1-mm1-broken-out.tar.gz file. This includes the `series' file which describes the patching order.
People who are using patch-scripts can recreate the patching machinery by doing:
cd /usr/src/linux tar xfz ~/2.6.4-rc1-mm1-broken-out.tar.gz mv broken-out/*.patch patches mv broken-out/series . for i in $(cat-series series) do pcpatch $i done rmdir broken-out
In the Changelog, Andrew also listed that he had fixed "scsi.h for inclusion by userspace apps - it used to work, so..." But Christoph Hellwig replied, "This has been rejected on linux-scsi a few times. Don't use include/scsi/ from the kerneltree - there's alredy a /usr/include/scsi from glibc anyway, so the situation is even more clear than the general you should not include kernel headers thing." Andrew replied, "hm, OK. If it works in 2.4 and doesn't work in 2.6 I'd consider that a regression. And as the fix is so trivial, I'd consider failure to fix it as pure dogmatism. But whatever, I'm utterly bored of this discussion. Consider it dropped." Bill Davidsen objected:
But the glibc headers don't describe 2.6, do they? Don't work with 2.6? We went around with this for cdrecord unless I misread which headers are involved.
It's not reasonable to expect people to rebuild glibc for each kernel, even if it is "the right thing to do" in some purist sense. It would be better to have something like user header in the kernel for just the interface, and have the kernel include start by pulling in the user header and then adding things the user doesn't need.
Changes between kernel series are always unpleasant during the time when people have to boot back and forth, we should think about a better way to do this for 2.7.
But there was no reply.
29. Developers Plan kgdb Patch Submission
3 Mar 2004 (6 posts) Archive Link: "Code freeze on lite patches and schedule for submission into mainline kernel"
People: Amit S. Kale, Pavel Machek
Amit S. Kale said:
We have two sets of kgdb patches as of now: [core-lite, i386-lite, 8250] and [core, i386, ppc, x86_64, eth]. First set of kgdb patches (lite) is fairly clean. Let's consider it to be a candicate for submission to mainline kernel.
I am freezing the lite patches wrt. feature updates. Only bug-fixes and code cleanups will be allowed in lite patches. You can make any feature enhancements to second set of patches.
I propose following schedule for pushing kgdb lite into mainline kernel: Take 1: 8th , Take 2: 15th, Take 3: 22nd, Take 4:29th. I'll download the kernel snapshot (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/) on these dates and submit a single patch for possible acceptance into mainline kenrel and feedback from community. Hopefully we'll succeed by end of this month.
Please checkin any fixes or cleanups by end of this week. I plan to add some documentation to core-lite.patch this week (will send it for review in a separate email)
Pavel Machek approved of this whole plan, but he said, "There may be better way to get kgdb into mainline. AFAICS, mainline already contains kgdb/ppc. Submiting "core-lite, ppc-lite, 8250" would then be simply much needed cleanup. We can push i386 few days after that." But Amit replied:
ppc.patch removes arch/ppc/kernel/ppc-stub.c and adds a new file kgdb.c I think that has a greater rejection chance.
Let's not change the direction now. Some time ago there was another view that x86_64 would be easier. We have already had sufficient headache because of split -lite -heavy patches. Let's try to finish that asap.
Pavel agreed that this made sense, and the thread ended.
Sharon And Joy
Kernel Traffic is grateful to be developed on a computer donated by Professor Greg Benson and Professor Allan Cruse in the Department of Computer Science at the University of San Francisco. This is the same department that invented FlashMob Computing. Kernel Traffic is hosted by the generous folks at kernel.org. All pages on this site are copyright their original authors, and distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2.0.