Krzysztof Kozlowski
Posts
195Following
32Followers
215🇵🇱 🇪🇺 🇰🇷 🇮🇱 🇺🇦 🇨ðŸ‡
IRC: krzk
Kernel work related account. Other accounts of mine: @krzk@mastodon.social
@sj Just in case - I was not offended and I just discuss the idea of measuring anything against CVEs.
I believe that in open-source work we should not be participating in this ridiculous CVE dance, unless of course it's our profession or job. Then... well, life. :) It was my job once too.
I understand why CVEs were invented and why they are still used, even though they were effectively made pointless in last few years. However, just because some corporations believe in them ("believe" is a key word here, because their decision about CVE was based on feelings not facts), does not mean we should be endorsing this or participating in this.
I believe that in open-source work we should not be participating in this ridiculous CVE dance, unless of course it's our profession or job. Then... well, life. :) It was my job once too.
I understand why CVEs were invented and why they are still used, even though they were effectively made pointless in last few years. However, just because some corporations believe in them ("believe" is a key word here, because their decision about CVE was based on feelings not facts), does not mean we should be endorsing this or participating in this.
1
0
1
@sj Since CVEs are basically useless, any percentage here or calling it "worst case time" is pointless. It's like measuring number of celebrities and mapping it to Linux kernel commits... Worse, it suggests that some bugs are not addressed (not fixed) or addressed slowly. This is in fact misleading.
1
0
1
@linuxplumbersconf Deadline for LPC 2023 refereed track and Kernel Summit passed two weeks ago. Any plans for sharing the schedule/program so people can do some planning?
0
0
0
Krzysztof Kozlowski
krzk
When review happens too fast:
"You replied within the same minute of me posting that patch, which is the fastest review I've had to date on an upstream kernel list. Before we continue, please verify:
[ ] I am not a robot"
From Brian Masney: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZN5KIlI+RDu92jsi@brian-x1/
"You replied within the same minute of me posting that patch, which is the fastest review I've had to date on an upstream kernel list. Before we continue, please verify:
[ ] I am not a robot"
From Brian Masney: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZN5KIlI+RDu92jsi@brian-x1/
0
1
9
Krzysztof Kozlowski
krzk
@marcan You look for developers, not maintainers. Maintainer, as name suggests, maintains the code, which does not necessarily mean active development. However, based on what you wrote, the key point is that existing maintainers did not bother to answer any questions or provide help, so most likely they do not fit the maintainer profile either...
1
0
0
@linuxplumbersconf That's cool, but when are you planning to announce accepted talks for LPC Refereed Track? I need to start planning the trip (including passport renewal which is a lot of time in my case, booking tickets and hotels etc)... not mentioning the need to actually write meaningful talk.
0
0
1
Krzysztof Kozlowski
krzk
@kwilczynski The sales trick is neat! Let's suck out of maintainers even money, not only their time!
RE: https://fosstodon.org/users/kwilczynski/statuses/110864258072128850
RE: https://fosstodon.org/users/kwilczynski/statuses/110864258072128850
0
0
1
@kwilczynski Although when I asked Sony to provide me with a Sony RC-S380 NFC card reader (for NFC maintenance), they send me a device immediately without questioning. Kudos to Sony. :)
0
0
3
Krzysztof Kozlowski
krzk
@kwilczynski No vendors stepped in to provide hardware for testing by Linux maintainers? No surprise...
There is somehow quite a big disconnection between big corporations making millions of products and Linux, and us - people actually developing Linux. Knowing enormous expenses in the marketing of big corporations, one could imagine what it is to donate a few boards to real Linux maintainers, right?
Nope.
I had a similar problem some time ago - till I gave up - with Samsung. I am the maintainer of Samsung SoC in Linux kernel, but all the boards were either purchased by me, donated by a friend in Germany, donated by a friend from Google or donated unofficially by a few good folks from Samsung R&D Poland.
When I asked Samsung Open-source or Samsung LSI (the one making SoCs I maintain) the answer was either silence or "no boards". One more board might now come from Samsung thanks to a project between Linaro and Samsung, but it is an exception.
And that makes me every time very rough in reviewing big-corporations code. Sorry guys, you do not play fair.
There is somehow quite a big disconnection between big corporations making millions of products and Linux, and us - people actually developing Linux. Knowing enormous expenses in the marketing of big corporations, one could imagine what it is to donate a few boards to real Linux maintainers, right?
Nope.
I had a similar problem some time ago - till I gave up - with Samsung. I am the maintainer of Samsung SoC in Linux kernel, but all the boards were either purchased by me, donated by a friend in Germany, donated by a friend from Google or donated unofficially by a few good folks from Samsung R&D Poland.
When I asked Samsung Open-source or Samsung LSI (the one making SoCs I maintain) the answer was either silence or "no boards". One more board might now come from Samsung thanks to a project between Linaro and Samsung, but it is an exception.
And that makes me every time very rough in reviewing big-corporations code. Sorry guys, you do not play fair.
1
1
3
@hyeyoo If this tartare is served very cold, then I think I tried it. It was very interesting, although not matching my preferences. The one we serve in my home country (Poland) is a bit different style - not that frozen. Oh, I really enjoyed horse tartare in Poland.
0
0
1
Krzysztof Kozlowski
krzk
@hyeyoo Cass I remember - water, sorry :). Terra - I did not try. From all the industrial companies only Klaud had a bit of taste. Beer revolution moves slowly :) but I remember few places with some nice choice, e.g. Cocky Pub.
RE: https://social.kernel.org/objects/fee182c1-7174-4348-90bb-f7f9cf196c39
RE: https://social.kernel.org/objects/fee182c1-7174-4348-90bb-f7f9cf196c39
0
0
1
@T_X Enough of people use these kernels and benefit is rather small comparing to costs of testing it on all possible machines/setups/users, like generic kernel.org are. Testing infrastructure in Canonical is huge, but it serves their purpose, not wider community's. Growing it for every possible machine in the world (to keep with the testing coverage) for benefit of few more folks using their kernel who would not contribute anyhow except filling bugs?
0
0
2
@T_X To be more precise - Canonical has team of ~10 Linux kernel engineers working on their stable kernels (not counting the folks working on hardware enablement and hardware-specific projects). These people maintain several stable kernels, so basically they do what you asked, just not within Linux Foundation or for kernel.org.
0
0
3
@karolherbst @kernellogger News is rather confusing people thus this discussion... Every LTS Ubuntu receives possibility to use the next release's kernel, called "HWE" kernel in that LTS release. The 23.04 was with v6.2, thus the HWE is v6.2, because it comes for free for Canonical. Or with not that much effort, as doing v6.1 for LTS! v6.2 is already supported by Canonical for 23.04.
The HWE kernel (so v6.2 in LTS) will roll to the new version, once Canonical releases newer Ubuntu using something new.
Thus suggesting that:
1. They should use v6.1 in 22.04 is not accurate. There is no point of making v6.1 HWE kernel and it would be time expensive.
2. They should use v6.3, v6.4 or whatever newer in 22.04 is again not possible or just too expensive for Canonical.
3. Thus the only viable suggestion was that 23.04 used v6.1 in the first place, thus 22.04 will get it as well... but that's different discussion and @kernellogger pointed out it already - Canonical wanted the latest kernel for 23.04.
The HWE kernel (so v6.2 in LTS) will roll to the new version, once Canonical releases newer Ubuntu using something new.
Thus suggesting that:
1. They should use v6.1 in 22.04 is not accurate. There is no point of making v6.1 HWE kernel and it would be time expensive.
2. They should use v6.3, v6.4 or whatever newer in 22.04 is again not possible or just too expensive for Canonical.
3. Thus the only viable suggestion was that 23.04 used v6.1 in the first place, thus 22.04 will get it as well... but that's different discussion and @kernellogger pointed out it already - Canonical wanted the latest kernel for 23.04.
0
0
1