Latest upstream release: 1.0.2 Current version/release in Fedora Rawhide: 1.0.1-5.fc21 URL: http://01.org/numatop Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
This version doesn't include the patches merged upstream [1,2] after numatop 1.0.1 and nothing has changed on github since they got merged. I'll try to get in touch with upstream. [1] https://github.com/01org/numatop/commit/f65d5ef [2] https://github.com/01org/numatop/commit/5506e43
(In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #1) > I'll try to get in touch with upstream. Any progress on that? I looked at the ML, and it seems completely dead.
Latest upstream release: 1.0.3.tar_0.gz">numatop_linux_1.0.3 Current version/release in Fedora Rawhide: 1.0.2-3.fc21 URL: http://01.org/numatop Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
I requested commit ACLs to push this update.
Hi, I'm back from holidays (in case you didn't see it) and I'm catching up. I've seen your ACLs requests but I'd rather check what's in 1.0.3 first. That is because 1.0.2 was such a mess, and I still have pending questions that will probably never see answers from upstream :( https://github.com/01org/numatop/issues/8#issuecomment-47621823 My main issue with numatop currently is the quality of source tarballs and repositories. So for this update I'd rather be careful and check before pushing anything. Gimme a few days, I'm still a bit jet-lagged :)
(In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #5) > Hi, > > I'm back from holidays (in case you didn't see it) and I'm catching up. I've > seen your ACLs requests but I'd rather check what's in 1.0.3 first. That is > because 1.0.2 was such a mess, and I still have pending questions that will > probably never see answers from upstream :( > > https://github.com/01org/numatop/issues/8#issuecomment-47621823 Your patches seem to have been committed. The tarball corresponds to https://github.com/01org/numatop/commit/444b0965cd9f598a0fb2c701c8b2ba90375a9a20. > My main issue with numatop currently is the quality of source tarballs and > repositories. So for this update I'd rather be careful and check before > pushing anything. They look kosher. > Gimme a few days, I'm still a bit jet-lagged :) NP.
How do I download the tarball you've uploaded to the lookaside cache ? md5sum doesn't match with upstream's (once again inconsistent) archive, and I want to diff them (with github's current tree too). My memory is blank right now, and "fedpkg sources" doesn't seem to download it (note to self, fedpkg(1) is broken).
Upstream's tarball seems to match the latest commit on github (f1a317d), that's good news.
I've finally figured why `fedpkg sources` didn't download the sources, and my brain seems to be fully functioning :) I have the following diff between upstream's and your tarball; where did you get those sources from? === $ diff -ur upstream/ zbigniew/ Only in upstream/: kernel_patches diff -ur upstream/README zbigniew/README --- upstream/README 2014-08-08 03:30:15.000000000 +0200 +++ zbigniew/README 2014-08-07 07:27:36.000000000 +0200 @@ -21,12 +21,9 @@ Kernel Requirement: ------------------ -Recommended kernel: 3.16 +Kernel: 3.13+ -For Haswell supporting, please also apply a perf patch on 3.16. The patch -is numatop/kernel_patches/0001-perf-x86-Widen-Haswell-OFFCORE-mask.patch. - -The patch can also be found at following link: +For Haswell supporting, please also apply the following perf patch in kernel. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1964864 Directories @@ -39,8 +36,6 @@ generate memory access with runtime latency value among CPUs. Note that this application is only used for numatop testing! -kernel_patches: the required kernel patches. - Note: ----- numatop is supported on Intel Xeon processors: 5500-series, 6500/7500-series, === After a quick search I couldn't find their patch in our kernel (3.15.10-200) neither in the source tree nor in the src.rpm patches. WDYT?
The top six commits in the github repo are: * f1a317da5a Add perf patch to support Haswell <------- that's the tarball * c79e07b988 Update README with patch info * 444b0965cd Change README <------- I used this one * d4192eb675 Add HSX support * e0177ca3fd Add IVB-EX support * 5506e43f57 Merge pull request #5 from Dridi/master IMHO it doesn't matter which one we use, since they only differ in "documentation". It later one is probably better. As for the patch, I'd simply wait. If Andi Kleen is working on it, I'm pretty sure it'll land in master rather quickly.
In this case, I'd rather use upstream's tarball and submit the kernel patch to Fedora's kernel maintainers. This way numatop could immediately use the haswell-specific bits.
(In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #11) > In this case, I'd rather use upstream's tarball and submit the kernel patch > to Fedora's kernel maintainers. I uploaded the upstream tarball, but I'm not sure about the patch. There was a reply on the ML which raised an issue which wasn't resolved, so I think it is better to wait until upstream merges the patch.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12) > I uploaded the upstream tarball, but I'm not sure about the patch. There was > a reply on the ML which raised an issue which wasn't resolved, so I think it > is better to wait until upstream merges the patch. Sounds good, thank you for the update!