kernel announce

phrakture · 2004-10-19 20:28:27

well, for the first time in ages, I got some kernel announce postings - and 2.6.9 is officially out
(as well as a gajillion 2.2.X updates)

I seriously just got 4 announcements

apeiro · 2004-10-19 21:59:56

2.6.9 is in Testing. Please download it and help us test it out so I can use it on the 0.7 iso.

paranoos · 2004-10-19 22:26:37

ok, i just installed 2.6.9 from testing. the kernel booted up fine. installation of the nvidia video driver failed, however. it seems that until a new version of the driver is released, the kernel needs to be patched.

since a lot of people are running nvidia, i think it would be a good idea to compile with this patch applied. the package is in testing for a reason, so let's see if the patch leads to any extra problems.

(the patch can be found here)

aCoder · 2004-10-19 22:34:38

You can also use a patched version of the driver, available here.

z4ziggy · 2004-10-20 00:27:53

tnx ppl for the nvidia patch... solved me couple of hours talking to google
i agree it should be part of the official package.

colnago · 2004-10-20 06:54:49

I have so many kernels now. It is a pain to switch between them because it seems the nvidia installer removes the module from the existing kernel dir when you install it in the new kernel dir ( in /lib/modules/2.6.x/kernel/drivers/video/ )

Am I missing something?

For example, when I want to boot 2.6.9, I install the nvidia driver from run level 3 and then 2.6.9 startx is fine, but when I go back to my 2.6.9-rc4 kernel, the driver is gone now and I have to reinstall. Then if I want 2.6.9 ...

paranoos · 2004-10-20 09:31:36

colnago wrote:

I have so many kernels now. It is a pain to switch between them because it seems the nvidia installer removes the module from the existing kernel dir when you install it in the new kernel dir ( in /lib/modules/2.6.x/kernel/drivers/video/ )
Am I missing something?
For example, when I want to boot 2.6.9, I install the nvidia driver from run level 3 and then 2.6.9 startx is fine, but when I go back to my 2.6.9-rc4 kernel, the driver is gone now and I have to reinstall. Then if I want 2.6.9 ...

the simple answer is: use one kernel. if you don't want to mess around with things like this, then don't upgrade your kernel (unless there's a bug that's bothering you and has to be fixed)

there simply isn't a reason to use beta/release-candidate kernels and bleeding-edge versions unless you're willing to put in some extra work. your headaches will only multiply by using multiple versions.

yanik · 2004-10-20 11:52:24

paranoos, can you actually use the patch command with Con's patch? I got this here :

The nvidia problem is not fixed in 2.6.9 and won't be - the kernel developers have made it quite clear that it's up to Nvidia to re-write their binary drivers "properly" so that they work and don't break. Great eh? The kernel guys change how the system works on every point release, and it *ucks up a binary driver and then they have the gall to blame it on the binary driver developer! hint hint, kernel developers - maybe if you *stopped* changing things around from point release to point release, or worked with Nvidia things would work!
Anyways, download the patch from Con Kolivas' link. Don't bother trying to run the diff patch, it'll fail as it's designed to work with 2.6.9-rc3 (rc4 and final release 2.6.9 are named differently, so the diff fails). Simply uncompress the new src, ln -s to /usr/src/linux, copy your old .config file over, do make oldconfig. Then go into /arch/i386/mm and locate the init.c file. Open it in vi (or whatever editor that you prefer) and go to line 43. Add this on the next line (line 44):
Code:
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__VMALLOC_RESERVE);

save the file and then make the image (make bzImage)...do your make modules && make modules_install. Then reboot to test - you'll have X fail, don't bother reconfiguring. Simply answer no, log in from the terminal, install the nvidia package, modprobe nvidia and then /etc/init.d/gdm restart should do the trick. X should now work. Good idea to reboot the PC and test the new kernel.

Other than that, what about burning cds? can you do it as user again?

thanks

Yanik

Mr Green · 2004-10-20 13:24:41

2.6.9-ck1 up & running nvidia works too...

phrakture · 2004-10-20 14:07:54

ok who wrote that quote about kernel developers?

I'll respond to it here anyway with my opinions about how arch should handle this. The problem is not that the kernel developers don't work with nvidia, it's that nvidia doesn't work with the kernel developers. The nvidia driver is not open sourced, meaning that the kernel developers are blind to the way it works.
And should the kernel developers really work with nvidia? Build the video section of the kernel based around the way nvidia does things? What, then, of ati drivers and many, many more.
Whoever stated that quote is, in plain english, an idiot. Yes, compatability was broke. Have you ever looked at a system where people tried to keep compatability working while changing interfaces? This was called "DLL hell" in windows... it makes for messy code to have "if we're kernel X then do this, kernel Y, do this.... blah blah blah".

Nvidia is the one supplying drivers for linux, it is their duty to keep up with changes in linux. If I am making, say, windshields for a certain car, and the new make of the car has a different windshield format, I don't throw my arms in the air and go "you broke your car, it's your fault I can't do anything about it - go back to the way I want".... no, I'd change my process and make one that worked with the new make of the car. In this same way should nvidia modify their setup to function with the modern changes.

What if the interface nvidia used was horribly broken? Should the kernel developers keep the broken code in there? What if it had security holes? Should faulty code be left in the kernel because nvidia wants it? A company which doesn't even support open source?

If anyone needs to change it is nvidia - it is their duty as a driver developer to keep up with changes. As such, I disagree that the kernel should be patched for this - the nvidia driver/installer should be patched instead.

yanik · 2004-10-20 15:53:55

I understand you phrakture, and I think you are right too, but is linux big enough to tell nVidia what to do?

The nvidia driver didn't worked anymore some time ago because of the swtich from 8k to 4k stack or something, and now this. What if nvidia gets tired of modifying their driver for, what, maybe 1% of their customers? What if they would just say screw you guys!? We don't support linux anymore!? (I know this is silly, but makes you wonder..)

I think this is what morgoth (the one I quoted) wanted to say. Sure it's frustrating having only binaries from nVidia, but we have to deal with it, and not ditch them because they don't embrace the OSS movement.

I feel kernel hackers think too much about the 'enterprise' and the big money coming their way, and forget about us simple users. The user that put them where they are today, the user that told his friend to try that wonderful OS...

What's your take on that phrakture? I like people with opinions

Yanik

phrakture · 2004-10-20 16:21:17

heh, ok I'll go more:
I am of the opinion that if you want to change something, change it once and for all - if it breaks older thigns, so-be-it. If you change a protocol or interface used by something else, that other piece should need to be changed for the same reasons. I can understand that this is "just a video driver", but still - if, say, 10k stacks suddenly became the new thing and were more efficient, wouldn't it follow that unless nvidia changed to 10k stacks they would be using a poorly-performing version (with a semi-easy fix). If they don't want the work of maintaining their drivers, they can open source them. I for one, would be glad to work on them.
I understand that they would lose a small portion of their userbase, however, linux users are usually much more driven than windows users about things like this - you don't see people protesting the US government saying "you can't sue microsoft!"... but look att SCO v Linux.
Even though the direct losses wouldn't be much, the social impact would be far greater, causing indirect loss of sales. This is part of the reason nvidia, as a busines, supports OSS in the way they do.

Kernel developers have done the same job for a while - they know what they're doing and know where they're going. I would give them the benefit of the doubt here. The changes were made for a reason. I am strongly opposed to patching the kernel to fix soemthign an outside provider would not fix. Patch the piece that is broken, not the piece that is breaking it - by analogy this would be similar to saying it was your nose's fault for breaking after being punched by Mike Tyson.

paranoos · 2004-10-20 21:41:23

I did some more reading after my first post in this thread. I originally thought that the change in the kernel was a bug, but in fact it's simply a new feature (something about allowing virtual memory to be variable or something). nVidia's driver relies on a certain variable to be exported from the kernel, and that variable has been removed.

the kernel patch simply exports this variable again, but i've read that this is a bad idea. i also am in agreement with phrakture here, that the kernel shouldn't be patched to fix a broken driver (i originally thought it was the other way around)

so, there's a patched driver available, but it's not official. i much prefer the convenience of 'pacman -S nvidia', so I haven't tried the patched driver yet.

about 2.6.9-ck1
ck1 includes the nvidia-compatibility patch, which is why it works for Mr Green.

about cd burning
i've read that some "ugly" code was removed from the kernel, concerning scsi emulation over ide (which is what ATAPI drives, such as your cd burner, are). the developper of cdrecord was opposed to this change, and hasn't patched the software to be compliant. i haven't run into this problem because i use cdrdao (which imho is a superior software).

skoal · 2004-10-20 22:42:54

yanik wrote:

I understand you phrakture, and I think you are right too, but is linux big enough to tell nVidia what to do?
[...]
What if nvidia gets tired of modifying their driver for, what, maybe 1% of their customers?

Phrakture makes a solid argument. However, I think the "patch" in question is for the Nvidia driver, not the kernel. Am I wrong? Anyway, as in the past, Nvidia has always lagged behind kernel development. Nvidia will never "open source" their drivers, so it will always be this way.

However, unlike other graphix card competitors (aka ATI), Nvidia has been pretty quick to deliver updates to match kernel changes. They have in the past, even in response to new OpenGL extensions. If the 2.6.9 kernel is no longer beta, then it won't be more than a month before the Nvidia driver matches it. Furthermore, Nvidia is well aware of outside contributions, and have added many of those features to their releases, including some nice stuff from the minion site.

With respect to a "1%" market share on the Linux platform, you might be surprised to know that it's over 10%. If you want to run the numbers, Nvidia annual sales are about 2 billion.

10% X 2,000,000,000 = $200 million in revenue

Hardly something to easily dismiss. And, if you've ever read the Nvidia forums for Linux, it's quite active and attended to by their staff. Nvidia knows the importance of the Nvidia Linux base. The last thing they want is for ATI to make any inroads there. And, they know that. And their customer support for Linux is top notch. Hands down. Personally, they sold me long long ago. I'll never use ATI on a Linux box again. Now, if they would just get off their ass and make a Power PC driver, then I'll drive to Santa Clara and kiss the CEO's ass personally. But, the x86 platform is their base, so I won't be breaking out the chapstick anytime soon.

With respect to Arch, having read this thread, I won't be updating my kernel anytime soon. I guess I'll lay off the "pacman -Su" until Nvidia rolls out the new driver. At least for me, Nvidia takes precedence. I won't be using any "patched" Nvidia package just to use the new kernel.

For developers, I love the bleeding edge updates Arch has to offer. It would be nice, for cases like this, if pacman had some utility to query existing package versions before installing, and bomb out before breaking other OS stuff. That's probably a chore to implement. A simple "depends=('nvidia')" wouldn't handle it without knowing the version information. Or am i missing something about ABS/PKGBUILDs? At least that was my experience while writing a package that checked for "perl" dependencies. I had no way to check for an installed perl version > 5, and only assumed most Arch'ers are encouraged to keep uptodate and in sync.

yanik · 2004-10-20 22:57:08

Well I guess our community is a lot stronger than I originally thought, great news

Yanik

paranoos · 2004-10-21 01:23:22

OK, I've created a package for the patched nvidia drivers.......

Edit: I took the stuff online, because it seems tpowa beat me to it hopefully his stuff will make it to Testing.

Xentac · 2004-10-21 01:31:08

You should probably talk to the nvidia package maintainer. I'm pretty sure he has a package basically ready as well...

paranoos · 2004-10-21 01:34:42

that would be a good idea.
except... i don't know who it is, or how to contact him

... nevermind
damn editing

Arch Linux

#1 2004-10-19 20:28:27

kernel announce

#2 2004-10-19 21:59:56

Re: kernel announce

#3 2004-10-19 22:26:37

Re: kernel announce

#4 2004-10-19 22:34:38

Re: kernel announce

#5 2004-10-20 00:27:53

Re: kernel announce

#6 2004-10-20 06:54:49

Re: kernel announce

#7 2004-10-20 09:31:36

Re: kernel announce

#8 2004-10-20 11:52:24

Re: kernel announce

#9 2004-10-20 13:24:41

Re: kernel announce

#10 2004-10-20 14:07:54

Re: kernel announce

#11 2004-10-20 15:53:55

Re: kernel announce

#12 2004-10-20 16:21:17

Re: kernel announce

#13 2004-10-20 21:41:23

Re: kernel announce

#14 2004-10-20 22:42:54

Re: kernel announce

#15 2004-10-20 22:57:08

Re: kernel announce

#16 2004-10-21 01:23:22

Re: kernel announce

#17 2004-10-21 01:31:08

Re: kernel announce

#18 2004-10-21 01:34:42

Re: kernel announce

Board footer