[GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Greg KH]

Alright, let's try some small i2c and w1 patches...

Could you merge with:
	kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/i2c-2.6.git/

It contains 4 small patches, 2 i2c and 2 w1 bugfixes, diffstat is
below, I'll figure out how to send the individual patches later.

thanks,

greg k-h

 drivers/i2c/chips/it87.c    |    2 +-
 drivers/i2c/chips/via686a.c |    7 ++-----
 drivers/w1/w1.c             |    9 +++++----
 drivers/w1/w1_smem.c        |    4 ++--
 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
     

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 09:39:38PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Alright, let's try some small i2c and w1 patches...
> 
> Could you merge with:
> 	kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/i2c-2.6.git/

Nice, it looks like the merge of this tree, and my usb tree worked just
fine.

So, what does this now mean?  Is your kernel.org git tree now going to
be the "real" kernel tree that you will be working off of now?  Should
we crank up the nightly snapshots and emails to the -commits list?

Can I rely on the fact that these patches are now in your tree and I can
forget about them? :)

Just wondering how comfortable you feel with your git tree so far.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> Nice, it looks like the merge of this tree, and my usb tree worked just
> fine.

Yup, it all seems to work out.

> So, what does this now mean?  Is your kernel.org git tree now going to
> be the "real" kernel tree that you will be working off of now?  Should
> we crank up the nightly snapshots and emails to the -commits list?

I'm not quite ready to consider it "real", but I'm getting there.

I'm still working out some performance issues with merges (the actual
"merge" operation itself is very fast, but I've been trying to make the
subsequent "update the working directory tree to the right thing" be much
better).

> Can I rely on the fact that these patches are now in your tree and I can
> forget about them? :)
> 
> Just wondering how comfortable you feel with your git tree so far.

Hold off for one more day. I'm very comfortable with how well git has 
worked out so far, and yes, mentally I consider this "the tree", but the 
fact is, git isn't exactly easy on "normal users".

I think my merge stuff and Pasky's scripts are getting there, but I want
to make sure that we have a version of Pasky's scripts that use the new
"read-tree -m" optimizations to make tracking a tree faster, and I'd like
to have them _tested_ a bit first.

In other words, I want it to be at the point where people can do

	git pull <repo-address>

and it will "just work", at least for people who don't have any local
changes in their tree. None of this "check out all the files again" crap.

But how about a plan that we go "live" tomorrow - assuming nobody finds
any problems before that, of course.

			Linus

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 12:40:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I'm still working out some performance issues with merges (the actual
> "merge" operation itself is very fast, but I've been trying to make the
> subsequent "update the working directory tree to the right thing" be much
> better).

Ok, if you want some practice with "real" merges, feel free to merge from
the following two trees whenever you are ready:
	kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/aoe-2.6.git/
for 11 aoe bugfix patches, and:
	kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-2.6.git/
for 13 driver core, sysfs, and debugfs fixes.

The diffstats are:

aoe:
 Documentation/aoe/mkdevs.sh       |    1 
 Documentation/aoe/mkshelf.sh      |    1 
 Documentation/aoe/todo.txt        |   14 ++++
 Documentation/aoe/udev-install.sh |    6 +-
 drivers/block/aoe/aoe.h           |   23 +++++--
 drivers/block/aoe/aoeblk.c        |    5 +
 drivers/block/aoe/aoecmd.c        |  110 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 drivers/block/aoe/aoedev.c        |    8 +-
 drivers/block/aoe/aoenet.c        |    8 +-
 9 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)

driver:
 Documentation/kref.txt        |  221 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 drivers/base/class.c          |    2 
 drivers/base/core.c           |    3 
 drivers/base/firmware_class.c |    3 
 drivers/base/platform.c       |    1 
 drivers/usb/host/hc_crisv10.c |    1 
 fs/partitions/check.c         |    2 
 fs/sysfs/file.c               |   35 ++++++
 include/linux/debugfs.h       |   14 +-
 include/linux/sysfs.h         |    7 +
 lib/kobject.c                 |    7 -
 net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c      |    2 
 scripts/ver_linux             |    2 
 13 files changed, 290 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

No rush, but they should be good test for your merge speeds, as they are
based off of an older HEAD than your current one :)

> In other words, I want it to be at the point where people can do
> 
> 	git pull <repo-address>
> 
> and it will "just work", at least for people who don't have any local
> changes in their tree. None of this "check out all the files again" crap.

That would be very nice to have.

> But how about a plan that we go "live" tomorrow - assuming nobody finds
> any problems before that, of course.

That's fine with me.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> Ok, if you want some practice with "real" merges, feel free to merge from
> the following two trees whenever you are ready:
> 	kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/aoe-2.6.git/
> for 11 aoe bugfix patches, and:
> 	kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-2.6.git/
> for 13 driver core, sysfs, and debugfs fixes.

Done, pushed out. Can you verify that the end result looks sane to you? I 
just cheched that the diffstat looks similar (mine claims just 108 lines 
changed in aoecmd.c - possibly due to different diff formats).

And yes, my new merge thing seems to have kept the index-cache much better 
up-to-date, allowing an optimized checkout-cache -f -a to work and only 
get the new files.

Pasky? Can you check my latest git stuff, notably read-tree.c and the 
changes to git-pull-script?

		Linus

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 01:20:47PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, if you want some practice with "real" merges, feel free to merge from
> > the following two trees whenever you are ready:
> > 	kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/aoe-2.6.git/
> > for 11 aoe bugfix patches, and:
> > 	kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-2.6.git/
> > for 13 driver core, sysfs, and debugfs fixes.
> 
> Done, pushed out. Can you verify that the end result looks sane to you? I 
> just cheched that the diffstat looks similar (mine claims just 108 lines 
> changed in aoecmd.c - possibly due to different diff formats).

Looks good to me (the diffstat difference is probably because the
patches were consecutive, and the sum of them are smaller (modifying
same parts of the files, etc.))

The git-changes-script shows that you picked up everything from my trees
successfully (assuming we trust that so far) and a raw diff looks good
too.

Two "odd" things in the changelog:

commit caaaaebc2380426b64aaa60a169834a7aefc956c
tree 484292d57c19acbf04cf5c783e7d26181b95e96e
parent 334a4e1b19f7f471594f7abd3bfead3720c1bd61
author Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> Wed, 20 Apr 2005 03:29:23 -0700
committer Linus Torvalds <torvalds@ppc970.osdl.org.(none)> Wed, 20 Apr 2005 03:29:23 -0700

It looks like your domain name isn't set up properly for your box (which
is why it worked for you, but not me before, causing that patch).

Also the date is in the future with the -0700, yet the time is in UTC.
Oh wait, that's a 'git log' thing, the raw changeset is correct, I guess
I'll wait for Pasky to fix that :)

> And yes, my new merge thing seems to have kept the index-cache much better 
> up-to-date, allowing an optimized checkout-cache -f -a to work and only 
> get the new files.

Very nice.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> It looks like your domain name isn't set up properly for your box (which
> is why it worked for you, but not me before, causing that patch).

No, I think it's a bug in your domainname changes. I don't think you
should do the domainname at all if the hostname has a dot in it.

Most machines I have access to (and that includes machines that are
professionally maintained, not just my own cruddy setup) says "(none)" to
domainname and have the full hostname in hostname.

And even the ones that use domainname tend to not have a fully qualified 
DNS domain there. You need to use dnsdomainname to get that, and I don't 
even know how to do it with standard libc.

So how about something like this?

(Somebody who actually knows how these things should be done - please feel 
free to pipe up).

		Linus

---
commit-tree.c: 54b636ee1edf596dae1cb9a756eaccdfd5127cef
--- a/commit-tree.c
+++ b/commit-tree.c
@@ -317,8 +317,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 	memcpy(realemail, pw->pw_name, len);
 	realemail[len] = '@';
 	gethostname(realemail+len+1, sizeof(realemail)-len-1);
-	strcat(realemail, ".");
-	getdomainname(realemail+strlen(realemail), sizeof(realemail)-strlen(realemail)-1);
+	if (!strchr(realemail+len+1, '.')) {
+		strcat(realemail, ".");
+		getdomainname(realemail+strlen(realemail), sizeof(realemail)-strlen(realemail)-1);
+	}
 	time(&now);
 	tm = localtime(&now);
 

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 03:00:04PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > It looks like your domain name isn't set up properly for your box (which
> > is why it worked for you, but not me before, causing that patch).
> 
> No, I think it's a bug in your domainname changes. I don't think you
> should do the domainname at all if the hostname has a dot in it.
> 
> Most machines I have access to (and that includes machines that are
> professionally maintained, not just my own cruddy setup) says "(none)" to
> domainname and have the full hostname in hostname.
> 
> And even the ones that use domainname tend to not have a fully qualified 
> DNS domain there. You need to use dnsdomainname to get that, and I don't 
> even know how to do it with standard libc.
> 
> So how about something like this?
> 
> (Somebody who actually knows how these things should be done - please feel 
> free to pipe up).

The glibc documentation blows for this, but what getdomainname comes
from uname(2), not from any DNS-related configuration.  Debian only
ever sets this if you're using NIS.

There's no real great way to get the current hostname; a lot of
applications do a reverse DNS lookup on the primary network interface,
with appropriate handwaving to define primary.

Easiest might be to punt to hostname --fqdn, or an equivalent to its
algorithm - which appears to be fetch the hostname from uname, do a DNS
lookup on that, and a reverse DNS lookup on the result.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 06:27:38PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 03:00:04PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > > 
> > > It looks like your domain name isn't set up properly for your box (which
> > > is why it worked for you, but not me before, causing that patch).
> > 
> > No, I think it's a bug in your domainname changes. I don't think you
> > should do the domainname at all if the hostname has a dot in it.
> > 
> > Most machines I have access to (and that includes machines that are
> > professionally maintained, not just my own cruddy setup) says "(none)" to
> > domainname and have the full hostname in hostname.
> > 
> > And even the ones that use domainname tend to not have a fully qualified 
> > DNS domain there. You need to use dnsdomainname to get that, and I don't 
> > even know how to do it with standard libc.
> > 
> > So how about something like this?
> > 
> > (Somebody who actually knows how these things should be done - please feel 
> > free to pipe up).
> 
> The glibc documentation blows for this, but what getdomainname comes
> from uname(2), not from any DNS-related configuration.  Debian only
> ever sets this if you're using NIS.

Well, somehow Gentoo sets this up properly, and I'm not using NIS.  Hm,
my SuSE boxes on the other hand...

> There's no real great way to get the current hostname; a lot of
> applications do a reverse DNS lookup on the primary network interface,
> with appropriate handwaving to define primary.
> 
> Easiest might be to punt to hostname --fqdn, or an equivalent to its
> algorithm - which appears to be fetch the hostname from uname, do a DNS
> lookup on that, and a reverse DNS lookup on the result.

Ick.  Let's stick with Linus's patch for now...

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Kenneth Johansson]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 06:27:38PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 03:00:04PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
>>>
>>>>It looks like your domain name isn't set up properly for your box (which
>>>>is why it worked for you, but not me before, causing that patch).
>>>
>>>No, I think it's a bug in your domainname changes. I don't think you
>>>should do the domainname at all if the hostname has a dot in it.
>>>
>>>Most machines I have access to (and that includes machines that are
>>>professionally maintained, not just my own cruddy setup) says "(none)" to
>>>domainname and have the full hostname in hostname.
>>>
>>>And even the ones that use domainname tend to not have a fully qualified 
>>>DNS domain there. You need to use dnsdomainname to get that, and I don't 
>>>even know how to do it with standard libc.
>>>
>>>So how about something like this?
>>>
>>>(Somebody who actually knows how these things should be done - please feel 
>>>free to pipe up).
>>
>>The glibc documentation blows for this, but what getdomainname comes
>>from uname(2), not from any DNS-related configuration.  Debian only
>>ever sets this if you're using NIS.
> 
> 
> Well, somehow Gentoo sets this up properly, and I'm not using NIS.  Hm,
> my SuSE boxes on the other hand...

I have to agree with Daniel on this one. The domainname is related to 
nis and can be whatever you want it has nothing to do with DNS domains. 
Similar to a realm in kerberos

This is how it's used both on debian and solaris(don't use much else) 
and is consistent with Linus claim that it's common to have none.

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> Easiest might be to punt to hostname --fqdn, or an equivalent to its
> algorithm - which appears to be fetch the hostname from uname, do a DNS
> lookup on that, and a reverse DNS lookup on the result.

Hah. I'll just commit my patch, and for any setup where that doesn't work, 
people can set COMMIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL by hand.

		Linus

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1354 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 15:00 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > It looks like your domain name isn't set up properly for your box (which
> > is why it worked for you, but not me before, causing that patch).
> 
> No, I think it's a bug in your domainname changes. I don't think you
> should do the domainname at all if the hostname has a dot in it.
> 
> Most machines I have access to (and that includes machines that are
> professionally maintained, not just my own cruddy setup) says "(none)" to
> domainname and have the full hostname in hostname.
> 
> And even the ones that use domainname tend to not have a fully qualified 
> DNS domain there. You need to use dnsdomainname to get that, and I don't 
> even know how to do it with standard libc.
> 

Correct me if I am wrong, but the right way to do this is to set the
hostname to just that - the hostname, and add 'domain foo.com'
to /etc/resolv.conf.  Then you should get something like (for say
www1.foo.com):

 $ hostname
www1
 $ dnsdomainname
foo.com
 $ hostname -f
www1.foo.com

I know for some buggy software the workaround was to set the hostname to
the FQDN, but that is really just a kludge, and the software should
rather be fixed (had to patch postfix some time back for instance).


-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but the right way to do this is to set the
> hostname to just that - the hostname, and add 'domain foo.com'
> to /etc/resolv.conf. 

I'll correct you.

The fact is, that's not what people do. Not me, not kernel.org, not _any_
of the machines I've got access to. They put the fully qualified name in 
the hostname, and just do "search foo.com" in /etc/resolv.conf.

So clearly, expecting that people work the way you claim is being
extremely optimistic. I'm sure some people do that too, but I suspect I'm
in the majority. Both Fedora Core and YellowDog act the way I described, 
not the way you do..

		Linus

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1347 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 15:43 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > 
> > Correct me if I am wrong, but the right way to do this is to set the
> > hostname to just that - the hostname, and add 'domain foo.com'
> > to /etc/resolv.conf. 
> 
> I'll correct you.
> 
> The fact is, that's not what people do. Not me, not kernel.org, not _any_
> of the machines I've got access to. They put the fully qualified name in 
> the hostname, and just do "search foo.com" in /etc/resolv.conf.
> 
> So clearly, expecting that people work the way you claim is being
> extremely optimistic. I'm sure some people do that too, but I suspect I'm
> in the majority. Both Fedora Core and YellowDog act the way I described, 
> not the way you do..
> 

The interesting bit you snipped was the part where you said you do not
know how to get dnsdomainname to work properly, and that I answered.
Why this other crap about how 90% of the world does it?

PS: If you have later tools, setting hostname to the FQDN and then still
adding 'domain' to resolv.conf seems to do the right thing, although it
did not some time back (and was why I said the bit about hostname only
containing the hostname, else you got something like 'hostname -f'
returning 'www1.foo.com.foo.com) ...


-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

On Tue, 2005-04-19 15:43:54 -0700, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > 
> > Correct me if I am wrong, but the right way to do this is to set the
> > hostname to just that - the hostname, and add 'domain foo.com'
> > to /etc/resolv.conf. 
> 
> I'll correct you.
> 
> The fact is, that's not what people do. Not me, not kernel.org, not _any_
> of the machines I've got access to. They put the fully qualified name in 
> the hostname, and just do "search foo.com" in /etc/resolv.conf.

That's not entirely correct. Actually, basically all machines
(administered by a number of people) only have the real hostname in
/etc/hostname and a domain entry in /etc/resolv.conf .

> So clearly, expecting that people work the way you claim is being
> extremely optimistic. I'm sure some people do that too, but I suspect I'm
> in the majority. Both Fedora Core and YellowDog act the way I described, 
> not the way you do..

Maybe these two do it that way. I just checked a recently installed
Debian box--they to it the way I'm used to^W^W^WMartin describes it.

MfG, JBG

-- 
Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481             _ O _
"Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg  _ _ O
 fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! |   im Irak!   O O O
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Lars Fenneberg]

Hi all!

Quoting Linus Torvalds (torvalds@osdl.org):

> And even the ones that use domainname tend to not have a fully qualified 
> DNS domain there. You need to use dnsdomainname to get that, and I don't 
> even know how to do it with standard libc.

I don't think getdomainname should be used at all in this case as it is the
domain name used by NIS and it might be different from the DNS domain name
in the FQDN associated with a given host. I just looked into the domainname
manual page and it agrees with me:

 domainname,  nisdomainname,  ypdomainname  will  print the name of the
 system as returned by the getdomainname(2) function.  This is also known as
 the YP/NIS domain name of the system.

That's why it is set to "(none)" (i.e. its not setup at all) on most hosts
because if they're not running NIS it's not really needed.

To get the FQDN which is what we want you'd have to use something like
this:

#include <netdb.h>
#include <unistd.h>

char *getfqdn(void)
{
        static char hostname[HOST_NAME_MAX + 1];
        struct hostent *hp;

        if (gethostname(hostname, sizeof(hostname)) < 0)
        {
                /* error handling */
        }

        if (!(hp = gethostbyname(hostname)))
        {
                /* just return the possibly unqualified hostname */
		return hostname;
        }

        return  hp->h_name;
}

Cheers,
Lars.
-- 
Lars Fenneberg, lf@elemental.net (private), lf@mcs.de (work)

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Petr Baudis]

Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:20:47PM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> told me that...
> Pasky? Can you check my latest git stuff, notably read-tree.c and the 
> changes to git-pull-script?

I've made git merge to use read-tree -m, HTH.

I will probably not buy git-export, though. (That is, it is merged, but
I won't make git frontend for it.) My "git export" already does
something different, but more importantly, "git patch" of mine already
does effectively the same thing as you do, just for a single patch; so I
will probably just extend it to do it for an (a,b] range of patches.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> 
> I will probably not buy git-export, though. (That is, it is merged, but
> I won't make git frontend for it.) My "git export" already does
> something different, but more importantly, "git patch" of mine already
> does effectively the same thing as you do, just for a single patch; so I
> will probably just extend it to do it for an (a,b] range of patches.

That's fine. It was a quick hack, just to show that if somebody wants to, 
the data is trivially exportable.

		Linus

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Steven Cole]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> 
>>Nice, it looks like the merge of this tree, and my usb tree worked just
>>fine.
> 
> 
> Yup, it all seems to work out.

[many files patched]
patching file mm/mmap.c
patching file net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c
patching file scripts/ver_linux
----------------------^^^^^^^^^
Hey, that's my patch!  Last...and least.
But perhaps a progress bar right about here might be
a good thing for the terminally impatient.

real    3m54.909s
user    0m14.835s
sys     0m10.587s

4 minutes might be long enough to cause some folks to lose hope.

Steven

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Petr Baudis]

Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:19:01AM CEST, I got a letter
where Steven Cole <elenstev@mesatop.com> told me that...
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> >>Nice, it looks like the merge of this tree, and my usb tree worked just
> >>fine.
> >
> >
> >Yup, it all seems to work out.
> 
> [many files patched]
> patching file mm/mmap.c
> patching file net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c
> patching file scripts/ver_linux
> ----------------------^^^^^^^^^
> Hey, that's my patch!  Last...and least.
> But perhaps a progress bar right about here might be
> a good thing for the terminally impatient.
> 
> real    3m54.909s
> user    0m14.835s
> sys     0m10.587s
> 
> 4 minutes might be long enough to cause some folks to lose hope.

I'm wondering if doing

if [ "$(show-diff)" ]; then
	git diff | git apply
else
	checkout-cache -f -a
fi

would actually buy us some time; or, how common is it for people to have
no local changes whatsoever, and whether relative slowdown of additional
show-diff to git diff would actually matter.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Junio C Hamano]

>>>>> "PB" == Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz> writes:

PB> I'm wondering if doing

PB> if [ "$(show-diff)" ]; then
PB> 	git diff | git apply
PB> else
PB> 	checkout-cache -f -a
PB> fi

PB> would actually buy us some time; or, how common is it for people to have
PB> no local changes whatsoever, and whether relative slowdown of additional
PB> show-diff to git diff would actually matter.

"show-diff -s" perhaps.  Also wouldn't it be faster to pipe
show-diff output (not git diff output) to patch (not git apply)?

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Petr Baudis]

Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:45:02AM CEST, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...
> >>>>> "PB" == Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz> writes:
> 
> PB> I'm wondering if doing
> 
> PB> if [ "$(show-diff)" ]; then
> PB> 	git diff | git apply
> PB> else
> PB> 	checkout-cache -f -a
> PB> fi
> 
> PB> would actually buy us some time; or, how common is it for people to have
> PB> no local changes whatsoever, and whether relative slowdown of additional
> PB> show-diff to git diff would actually matter.
> 
> "show-diff -s" perhaps.  Also wouldn't it be faster to pipe
> show-diff output (not git diff output) to patch (not git apply)?

Excellent idea, thanks. Changed git merge to do this.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Steven Cole wrote:
>
> But perhaps a progress bar right about here might be
> a good thing for the terminally impatient.
> 
> real    3m54.909s
> user    0m14.835s
> sys     0m10.587s
> 
> 4 minutes might be long enough to cause some folks to lose hope.

Well, the real operations took only 15 seconds. What kind of horribe 
person are you, that you don't have all of the kernel in your disk cache 
already? Shame on you.

Or was the 4 minutes for downloading all the objest too?

Anyway, it looks like you are using pasky's scripts, and the old 
"patch-based" upgrade at that. You certainly will _not_ see the

	[many files patched]
	patching file mm/mmap.c
	..

if you use a real git merge. That's probable be the real problem here.

Real merges have no patches taking place _anywhere_. And they take about 
half a second. Doing an "update" of your tree should _literally_ boil down 
to

	#
	# "repo" needs to point to the repo we update from
	#
	rsync -avz --ignore-existing $repo/objects/. .git/objects/.
	rsync -L $repo/HEAD .git/NEW_HEAD || exit 1
	read-tree -m $(cat .git/NEW_HEAD) || exit 1
	checkout-cache -f -a
	update-cache --refresh
	mv .git/NEW_HEAD .git/HEAD

and if it does anything else, it's literally broken. Btw, the above does
need my "read-tree -m" thing which I committed today.

(CAREFUL: the above is not a good script, because it _will_ just overwrite 
all your old contents with the stuff you updated to. You should thus not 
actually use something like this, but a "git update" should literally end 
up doing the above operations in the end, and just add proper checking).

And if that takes 4 minutes, you've got problems.

Just say no to patches. 

		Linus

PS: If you want a clean tree without any old files or anything else, for
that matter, you can then do a "show-files -z --others | xargs -0 rm", but
be careful: that will blow away _anything_ that wasn't revision controlled
with git. So don't blame me if your pr0n collection is gone afterwards.

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Petr Baudis]

Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:38:17AM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> told me that...
> Just say no to patches. 

FYI, I've - per Junio's suggestion - made git merge's fast-forward to
apply show-diff output as a patch instead. This is roughly equal to
doing the sanity check against local changes, except that it handles
them, while at it. (Tree merge refuses to work when there are local
changes.)

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Steven Cole]

On Tuesday 19 April 2005 04:38 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Steven Cole wrote:
> >
> > But perhaps a progress bar right about here might be
> > a good thing for the terminally impatient.
> > 
> > real    3m54.909s
> > user    0m14.835s
> > sys     0m10.587s
> > 
> > 4 minutes might be long enough to cause some folks to lose hope.
> 
> Well, the real operations took only 15 seconds. What kind of horribe 
> person are you, that you don't have all of the kernel in your disk cache 
> already? Shame on you.
> 
> Or was the 4 minutes for downloading all the objest too?

Yes, I was using a very recent version of the pasky tools,
I had created the repo this morning with git init YOUR_RSYC_URL_FOR_LINUX-2.6.
I did time git pull origin and watched the fur fly.

Then, the flurry of patching file blah messages, followed by a rather 
pregnant pause after the last patching message.

I wasn't complaining about the 4 minutes, just the lack of feedback
during the majority of that time.  And most of it was after the last
patching file message.

> 
> Anyway, it looks like you are using pasky's scripts, and the old 
> "patch-based" upgrade at that. You certainly will _not_ see the
> 
> 	[many files patched]
> 	patching file mm/mmap.c
> 	..
> 
> if you use a real git merge. That's probable be the real problem here.
> 
> Real merges have no patches taking place _anywhere_. And they take about 
> half a second. Doing an "update" of your tree should _literally_ boil down 
> to
> 
> 	#
> 	# "repo" needs to point to the repo we update from
> 	#
> 	rsync -avz --ignore-existing $repo/objects/. .git/objects/.
> 	rsync -L $repo/HEAD .git/NEW_HEAD || exit 1
> 	read-tree -m $(cat .git/NEW_HEAD) || exit 1
> 	checkout-cache -f -a
> 	update-cache --refresh
> 	mv .git/NEW_HEAD .git/HEAD
> 
> and if it does anything else, it's literally broken. Btw, the above does
> need my "read-tree -m" thing which I committed today.
> 
> (CAREFUL: the above is not a good script, because it _will_ just overwrite 
> all your old contents with the stuff you updated to. You should thus not 
> actually use something like this, but a "git update" should literally end 
> up doing the above operations in the end, and just add proper checking).
> 
> And if that takes 4 minutes, you've got problems.
> 
> Just say no to patches. 
> 
> 		Linus
> 
> PS: If you want a clean tree without any old files or anything else, for
> that matter, you can then do a "show-files -z --others | xargs -0 rm", but
> be careful: that will blow away _anything_ that wasn't revision controlled
> with git. So don't blame me if your pr0n collection is gone afterwards.
> 

OK.  I may try some of this tomorrow from work, where I have a fat pipe.

I'm on dialup from home, and I suspect not very many folks want to hear
the sad tale of how long it takes to get the kernel over 56k dialup.

Steven

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Petr Baudis]

Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:04:48AM CEST, I got a letter
where Steven Cole <elenstev@mesatop.com> told me that...
> Then, the flurry of patching file blah messages, followed by a rather 
> pregnant pause after the last patching message.
> 
> I wasn't complaining about the 4 minutes, just the lack of feedback
> during the majority of that time.  And most of it was after the last
> patching file message.

That must've been the update-cache.

Well, you can listen to your strained disk crepitating direly.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Steven Cole wrote:
> 
> I wasn't complaining about the 4 minutes, just the lack of feedback
> during the majority of that time.  And most of it was after the last
> patching file message.

That should be exactly the thing that the new "read-tree -m" fixes.

Before, when you read in a new tree (which is what you do when you update
to somebody elses version), git would throw all the cached information
away, and so you'd end up doing a "checkout-cache -f -a" that re-wrote
every single checked-out file, followed by "update-cache --refresh" that
then re-created the cache for every single file.

With the new read-tree, the same sequence (assuming you have the "-m"  
flag to tell read-tree to merge the cache information) will now only write
out and re-check the files that actually changed due to the update or
merge.

So that last phase should go from minutes to seconds - instead of checking
17,000+ files, you'd end up checking maybe a few hundred for most "normal"
updates.

For example, updating all the way from the git root (ie plain 2.6.12-rc2)  
to the current head, only 577 files have changed, and the rest (16,740)
should never be touched at all.

You can see why doing just the 577 instead of the full 17,317 might speed
things up a bit ;)

		Linus

PS. Of course, right now it probably does make sense to waste some time
occasionally, and run "fsck-cache $(cat .git/HEAD)" every once in a while.
Just in case..

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Steven Cole]

On Tuesday 19 April 2005 05:38 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Steven Cole wrote:
> > 
> > I wasn't complaining about the 4 minutes, just the lack of feedback
> > during the majority of that time.  And most of it was after the last
> > patching file message.
> 
> That should be exactly the thing that the new "read-tree -m" fixes.
> 
> Before, when you read in a new tree (which is what you do when you update
> to somebody elses version), git would throw all the cached information
> away, and so you'd end up doing a "checkout-cache -f -a" that re-wrote
> every single checked-out file, followed by "update-cache --refresh" that
> then re-created the cache for every single file.
> 
> With the new read-tree, the same sequence (assuming you have the "-m"  
> flag to tell read-tree to merge the cache information) will now only write
> out and re-check the files that actually changed due to the update or
> merge.
> 
> So that last phase should go from minutes to seconds - instead of checking
> 17,000+ files, you'd end up checking maybe a few hundred for most "normal"
> updates.
> 
> For example, updating all the way from the git root (ie plain 2.6.12-rc2)  
> to the current head, only 577 files have changed, and the rest (16,740)
> should never be touched at all.
> 
> You can see why doing just the 577 instead of the full 17,317 might speed
> things up a bit ;)
> 
> 		Linus

Cool.  Petr, I hope this works like this with your tools tomorrow.

> 
> PS. Of course, right now it probably does make sense to waste some time
> occasionally, and run "fsck-cache $(cat .git/HEAD)" every once in a while.
> Just in case..
> 
> 
Sounds like a good thing to schedule for $WEEHOUR.

Steven

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Zlatko Calusic]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> Real merges have no patches taking place _anywhere_. And they take about 
> half a second. Doing an "update" of your tree should _literally_ boil down 
> to
>
> 	#
> 	# "repo" needs to point to the repo we update from
> 	#
> 	rsync -avz --ignore-existing $repo/objects/. .git/objects/.

I see this -avz incantation mentioned everytime when rsync is
involved. But, is the -z part (compression) really necessary knowing
that we're dealing with an already compressed tree? Doesn't it put
additional strain on the rsync server without any benefit in this
case?

Or I might be too ignorant and not understand some internals well, but
then... I would like to know the reason. :)

Regards,
-- 
Zlatko

Re: [GIT PATCH] I2C and W1 bugfixes for 2.6.12-rc2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> 
> I see this -avz incantation mentioned everytime when rsync is
> involved. But, is the -z part (compression) really necessary knowing
> that we're dealing with an already compressed tree? Doesn't it put
> additional strain on the rsync server without any benefit in this
> case?
> 
> Or I might be too ignorant and not understand some internals well, but
> then... I would like to know the reason. :)

I'm not a big rsync user, so I just copied the examples of others.

You're right, for git, you should not use compression for files (I don't 
know if rsync compresses the directory listings by default, I assume it 
does). 

		Linus