261 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
261 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
{
|
||
"comments": [
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": true,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "32982b65_a63335f8",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 32832
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-15T05:41:31Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "Hi, Vefa and architects: \n I\u0027m fine with the spec. \n I have a question here which might be not necessary for the spec, but is important for our kernel developing process on this upgrading. From my work by now, I found this kernel upgrading can cause some user interface changes (e.g. attribute files change under proc/ sys/ ...) and they will cause jenkins installation failures. Those issues need to be solved or located by wrcp framework. Then it is a problem how kernel and framework work together. If we merge kernel first, it will cause broken installation. If we merge all the changes together, it will involve a mass of patches from different developers.\n Do you have any idea about how we deal with this? Will it be OK if we use a temp branch for those repos of this upgrading and merge them back when all the work finished?\n Thanks.",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": true,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "38913b18_b54ee416",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 33377
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-15T20:22:46Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "Hi Li,\n\nThis is an excellent question; thank you.\n\nAn example for a way to attack this issue: During the v5.10 kernel uprevision activity, Jiping had a private StarlingX master branch project onto which she applied her patches/changes, and I used Jiping\u0027s project as a baseline for mine, by fetching from the repositories in Jiping\u0027s project. This was not very easy to work with, but we (Jiping and I) were able to pull it off.\n\nWe were aware of some of the v5.10 kernel compatibility issues (thanks to early tests) ahead of the v5.10 kernel upgrade commit getting merged, and we fixed them ahead of time. An example: https://review.opendev.org/c/starlingx/integ/+/799702\n\nAnother and likely more elegant approach, as you mention, is to have an integration branch created for this purpose. When the v6.6 kernel is ready in the integration branch, we can then merge the integration branch into the master branch in the affected repositories. The problem with this is that we will have a dependency on the StarlingX build team, as they will need to create a new branch (in all affected repositories) and a new nightly StarlingX build job for the integration branch. This will delay us a bit, but I agree that it is the \"proper\" way to go.\n\nWhen we have a consensus on how to resolve this issue, I can update the specification proposal to mention what we decided on.\n\nAll, we need feedback.\n\n---\n\nFinally, regarding incompatibilities with the v6.6 kernel, I am aware of a removed sysctl variable (\"kernel.sched_nr_migrate\") in the v6.4.3-rt kernel, which prevented Ansible bootstrap while I was verifying something else, and I patched the kernel to reintroduce this sysctl. I think that we can remove the use of \"kernel.sched_nr_migrate\" from StarlingX instead of doing what I did... ( I mentioned it here: https://review.opendev.org/c/starlingx/kernel/+/889319/1//COMMIT_MSG )\n\n---\n\nThank you,\n\nVefa",
|
||
"parentUuid": "32982b65_a63335f8",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "bf22b91a_17c4d958",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 26026
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-16T11:54:24Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "Adding other TSC members to review.",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "d41f4f11_9189e2a1",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 26026
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-17T14:08:29Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "Shuquan and SteveG ... can you guys +2",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "03f103cb_b8516898",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 33377
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-23T14:00:30Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "Hi all,\n\nI started a discussion (admittedly internal to Wind River) regarding the feasibility of creating a StarlingX integration branch for the kernel upgrade activity. After about a week of waiting, I learned that the effort required for creating an integration branch is not prohibitive (likely a day\u0027s worth of work). I have not received negative or positive comments, however.\n\nIf the reviewers of this proposal find it beneficial, I can update the specification proposal to note that the use of an integration branch has been under consideration. Until then, I would like to \u0027resolve\u0027 this thread.\n\nThank you,\n\nVefa",
|
||
"parentUuid": "38913b18_b54ee416",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "e65589e8_18d85480",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 33377
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-23T14:00:30Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "Hi all,\n\nMy understanding is that we need another vote for the approval of this specification proposal to reach a simple majority (3 approvals out of 4 possible approvers):\n\nhttps://docs.starlingx.io/governance/reference/tsc/house.html#specs-approval\nhttps://docs.starlingx.io/governance/reference/tsc/\n\nIs there any chance that another Technical Steering Committee (TSC) member could review this specification proposal?\n\nThank you,\n\nVefa",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "bf6a1de3_439a8874",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 33394
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-25T20:37:27Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "I think the spec covers things well. As expected and the document covers we have to be concerned about kernel cmdline, /sys, /proc, and syscalls. LTP will cover lots of this as it does extensively cover syscalls via libc. The stable ABI doesn\u0027t translate to a stable API, or a stable internal ABI, so folks adding drivers may run into issues. Maybe a note should be added about this, but I am not aware of any folks adding drivers, so maybe it is overkill.",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "455caf73_46f42b77",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 33377
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-26T16:35:53Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "Thank you, Mark. If other reviewers have any comments that would necessitate a newer revision of this commit, I can add a note to the document regarding the lack of stable kernel-internal APIs (and ABIs) that may/will cause issues for out-of-tree drivers or modules, based on your feedback. Thanks again.",
|
||
"parentUuid": "bf6a1de3_439a8874",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "4dab6f74_deae0075",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 33377
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-26T16:39:20Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "Hi all,\n\nIs there any chance that the other Technical Steering Committee (TSC) members could review this specification proposal?\n\nShuquan Huang and Steve Geary, I would appreciate your feedback.\n\n(I have just added Steve\u0027s new account to the list of reviewers.)\n\nThank you,\n\nVefa",
|
||
"parentUuid": "e65589e8_18d85480",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "18dd79d5_0411588e",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 36731
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-26T17:47:50Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "Reviewing it and have need for clarity in the proposal. I can\u0027t +2 it just yet. I am forming a response with points I need clarity on.",
|
||
"parentUuid": "03f103cb_b8516898",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "813bc32b_1e081f3e",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 33377
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-26T17:55:42Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "Thank you, Steve. (I think you meant to reply to the other thread?)",
|
||
"parentUuid": "18dd79d5_0411588e",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "b918bec5_c4805828",
|
||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 36731
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-26T20:05:34Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "My understanding of the proposal is intends to upgrade StarlingX’s kernel from a Yocto Project (YP) LTS kernel based on a 5.10 kernel.org a YP LTS kernel based on a kernel.org 6.6 kernel. While I completely support and champion adopting a new kernel to take advantage of new features and improve stability, the full picture of this proposal is unclear to me.\n\nThe Storyboard states the upgrade objective is to let StarlingX take advantage of upstream improvements made to the Linux kernel since the release of StarlingX\u0027s current kernel based on v5.10. Bullet two of proposed change states the continued use of the YP kernel as the upstream source for the StarlingX kernel.\n\nAlthough StarlingX’s kernel is sourced from YP, it is unclear how the StarlingX community gets upstream support for its own kernel. Keep in mind that YP originally sources its kernel from kernel.org and doesn’t directly support kernel.org kernel content. I would like the following addressed in the proposal:\n How the StarlingX kernel remediates StarlingX kernel defects where the code \n maintainer is kernel.org, YP, and out-of-tree drivers, respectively.\n\nI did read the relevant uplevel subsection for the StarlingX 6.0 release. Statements made in the subsection were pertinent at the time of the writing. However, progress since the original authoring suggests a different conclusion. I am not advocating that an upstream kernel sourced from Debian be considered for StarlingX 10.0. However, I do suggest that there be an update somewhere in the StarlingX ethos that revisits the topic and that the 6.0 uplevel analysis reference be removed from this, specific proposal.\n\nIf out-of-tree is relative to any other kernel besides YP, please reference the kernel. For example, “YP out-of-tree” and “StX out-of-tree” to be clear on where technical debt is being applied.",
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "682aa0e0_e25da0c8",
|
||
"filename": "doc/source/specs/stx-10.0/approved/os-2011000-uprevision-kernel-to-v6.6.rst",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 264,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 32832
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-15T05:41:31Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "we are expecting this spec for drivers.",
|
||
"range": {
|
||
"startLine": 262,
|
||
"startChar": 25,
|
||
"endLine": 264,
|
||
"endChar": 29
|
||
},
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"unresolved": false,
|
||
"key": {
|
||
"uuid": "68aee5a1_ceba2e33",
|
||
"filename": "doc/source/specs/stx-10.0/approved/os-2011000-uprevision-kernel-to-v6.6.rst",
|
||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||
},
|
||
"lineNbr": 264,
|
||
"author": {
|
||
"id": 33377
|
||
},
|
||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-15T20:22:46Z",
|
||
"side": 1,
|
||
"message": "Hi Li,\n\nI intend to prepare and publish this specification proposal (for in-tree drivers) as well. I will need a bit more time.\n\nThank you,\n\nVefa",
|
||
"parentUuid": "682aa0e0_e25da0c8",
|
||
"range": {
|
||
"startLine": 262,
|
||
"startChar": 25,
|
||
"endLine": 264,
|
||
"endChar": 29
|
||
},
|
||
"revId": "8d05288efa59f8bcf1e9230bb4e68e1abceb1268",
|
||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||
}
|
||
]
|
||
} |