Mailing List Archive

Hi,

On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 18:58 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/alsa-driver-1.0.24-90.el6.src.rpm

this update removes a patch that was needed for at least f14. :)
--
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 18:58 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> >
> http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/alsa-driver-1.0.24-90.el6.src.rpm
>
> this update removes a patch that was needed for at least f14. :)
>
>
No. It was changed for the adriver.patch.

The new rhel6 kernel requires lowering the kernel version
from 35 to 32 ...


--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ

Hi,

On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 09:16 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net>
> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 18:58 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/alsa-driver-1.0.24-90.el6.src.rpm
>
> The new rhel6 kernel requires lowering the kernel version
> from 35 to 32 ...

this package doesn't build for.all other RHEL6 kernels and also not for
f13. Is there a way to make it build everywhere again? The builds that
did succeed are in bleeding.
--
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 09:16 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net>
> > wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 18:58 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> >
> http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/alsa-driver-1.0.24-90.el6.src.rpm
> >
> > The new rhel6 kernel requires lowering the kernel version
> > from 35 to 32 ...
>
> this package doesn't build for.all other RHEL6 kernels and also not for
> f13. Is there a way to make it build everywhere again? The builds that
> did succeed are in bleeding.
>
>
Would you have a log?
There is nothing very different from the previous version.

I built it for rhel6 and f14 x86_64...


--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Paulo Cavalcanti <promac@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 09:16 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 18:58 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>> >
>> http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/alsa-driver-1.0.24-90.el6.src.rpm
>> >
>> > The new rhel6 kernel requires lowering the kernel version
>> > from 35 to 32 ...
>>
>> this package doesn't build for.all other RHEL6 kernels and also not for
>> f13. Is there a way to make it build everywhere again? The builds that
>> did succeed are in bleeding.
>>
>>
> Would you have a log?
> There is nothing very different from the previous version.
>
> I built it for rhel6 and f14 x86_64...
>
>
>

I see what is happening. F12 and F13 also use kernel 2.6.32.
However, their kernels have not been patched by RedHat.

Therefore, the adriver patch should not be applied to F12 and F13.
The simplest way is adding a bcond something. Nonetheless, F12 is dead
and F13 is going to die soon. Should we just let them rest in peace??

--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Paulo Cavalcanti <promac@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Paulo Cavalcanti <promac@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 09:16 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>>> > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 18:58 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>>> >
>>> http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/alsa-driver-1.0.24-90.el6.src.rpm
>>> >
>>> > The new rhel6 kernel requires lowering the kernel version
>>> > from 35 to 32 ...
>>>
>>> this package doesn't build for.all other RHEL6 kernels and also not for
>>> f13. Is there a way to make it build everywhere again? The builds that
>>> did succeed are in bleeding.
>>>
>>>
>> Would you have a log?
>> There is nothing very different from the previous version.
>>
>> I built it for rhel6 and f14 x86_64...
>>
>>
>>
>
> I see what is happening. F12 and F13 also use kernel 2.6.32.
> However, their kernels have not been patched by RedHat.
>
> Therefore, the adriver patch should not be applied to F12 and F13.
> The simplest way is adding a bcond something. Nonetheless, F12 is dead
> and F13 is going to die soon. Should we just let them rest in peace??
>
>
>
Axel, I did not have any problem creating the i686 version for rhel6 with
mock:

http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/rpms/rpmsel6-x86_64/alsa-kmdl-2.6.32-131.0.15.el6.i686-1.0.24-90.el6.i686.rpm

There must be something at your side ...

--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ

On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 08:21 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:

> I see what is happening. F12 and F13 also use kernel 2.6.32.
> However, their kernels have not been patched by RedHat.
>
> Therefore, the adriver patch should not be applied to F12 and
> F13.
> The simplest way is adding a bcond something. Nonetheless, F12
> is dead
> and F13 is going to die soon. Should we just let them rest in
> peace??

It also affects all RHEL5 kernels but the very latest. RHEL is a slow
upgrading platform for most users, so the support of at least a few
kernels is a must.

> Axel, I did not have any problem creating the i686 version for rhel6
> with mock: [...]
> There must be something at your side ...

This is normal, if the x86_64 builds fail the other archs are not even
tried in the default build mode. I initiated a i386 build which at least
produced the package for the latest kernel. Still the package should ATM
also build on the non patched kernels. I didn't have time to find a good
fix, but it doesn't sound too difficult.
--
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 08:21 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>
> > I see what is happening. F12 and F13 also use kernel 2.6.32.
> > However, their kernels have not been patched by RedHat.
> >
> > Therefore, the adriver patch should not be applied to F12 and
> > F13.
> > The simplest way is adding a bcond something. Nonetheless, F12
> > is dead
> > and F13 is going to die soon. Should we just let them rest in
> > peace??
>
> It also affects all RHEL5 kernels but the very latest. RHEL is a slow
> upgrading platform for most users, so the support of at least a few
> kernels is a must.
>

But rhel5 still uses the kernel 2.6.18.

The change was just lowering from kernel 2.6.35/2.6.37 to 2.6.32. It should
affect only
F12 (2.6.32), F13 (2.6.34) and previous rhel6 versions only. I do not see
how
rhel5 was affected ....

The adriver patch is listed below:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

diff -Naur alsa-driver-1.0.24/include/adriver.h
alsa-driver-1.0.24-new/include/adriver.h
--- alsa-driver-1.0.24/include/adriver.h 2011-01-27 10:09:20.000000000
-0200
+++ alsa-driver-1.0.24-new/include/adriver.h 2011-05-20
18:41:26.108621169 -0300
@@ -1909,7 +1909,7 @@
#endif

/* hex_to_bin() */
-#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 35)
+#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 32)
static inline int hex_to_bin(char c)
{
if (c >= '0' && c <= '9')
@@ -1923,7 +1923,7 @@
#endif

/* vzalloc() wrapper */
-#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 37)
+#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 32)
#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
static inline void *vzalloc(unsigned long size)
{

--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti <promac@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 08:21 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>>
>> > I see what is happening. F12 and F13 also use kernel 2.6.32.
>> > However, their kernels have not been patched by RedHat.
>> >
>> > Therefore, the adriver patch should not be applied to F12 and
>> > F13.
>> > The simplest way is adding a bcond something. Nonetheless, F12
>> > is dead
>> > and F13 is going to die soon. Should we just let them rest in
>> > peace??
>>
>> It also affects all RHEL5 kernels but the very latest. RHEL is a slow
>> upgrading platform for most users, so the support of at least a few
>> kernels is a must.
>>
>
> But rhel5 still uses the kernel 2.6.18.
>
> The change was just lowering from kernel 2.6.35/2.6.37 to 2.6.32. It
> should affect only
> F12 (2.6.32), F13 (2.6.34) and previous rhel6 versions only. I do not see
> how
> rhel5 was affected ....
>
> The adriver patch is listed below:
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> diff -Naur alsa-driver-1.0.24/include/adriver.h
> alsa-driver-1.0.24-new/include/adriver.h
> --- alsa-driver-1.0.24/include/adriver.h 2011-01-27 10:09:20.000000000
> -0200
> +++ alsa-driver-1.0.24-new/include/adriver.h 2011-05-20
> 18:41:26.108621169 -0300
> @@ -1909,7 +1909,7 @@
> #endif
>
> /* hex_to_bin() */
> -#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 35)
> +#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 32)
> static inline int hex_to_bin(char c)
> {
> if (c >= '0' && c <= '9')
> @@ -1923,7 +1923,7 @@
> #endif
>
> /* vzalloc() wrapper */
> -#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 37)
> +#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 32)
> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> static inline void *vzalloc(unsigned long size)
>
> {
>
>
By the way. I do not understand why the driver is in bleeding.

It is exactly the same driver as before: patches 0, 2, 6 are now
patches 0,2,6,7,8. Patch 6 is the new adriver patch and patches 7 and 8
affect only two specific mobo models when the driver is loaded using
non-default options.
It just remaps some pins on two of my sound cards, and will not hurt anybody
....

--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ

On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 11:23 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>
> It also affects all RHEL5 kernels but the very latest.
> RHEL is a slow
> upgrading platform for most users, so the support of
> at least a few
> kernels is a must.
>
> But rhel5 still uses the kernel 2.6.18.

Sorry, this was a typo, I meant RHEL6.

> The change was just lowering from kernel 2.6.35/2.6.37 to
> 2.6.32. It should affect only
> F12 (2.6.32), F13 (2.6.34) and previous rhel6 versions only. I
> do not see how
> rhel5 was affected ....


> By the way. I do not understand why the driver is in bleeding.

Mainly because it is breaking RHEL6.0, but the older driver is breaking
6.1, so both are flawed ATM. :/

--
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/