13:02:51 <jki> #startmeeting CIP IRC weekly meeting
13:02:51 <collab-meetbot`> Meeting started Thu Mar  6 13:02:51 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jki. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:02:51 <collab-meetbot`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
13:02:51 <collab-meetbot`> The meeting name has been set to 'cip_irc_weekly_meeting'
13:02:58 <jki> #topic AI review
13:03:05 <jki> no open points
13:03:13 <jki> 5
13:03:14 <jki> 4
13:03:15 <jki> 3
13:03:16 <jki> 2
13:03:18 <jki> 1
13:03:20 <jki> #topic Kernel maintenance updates
13:03:37 <uli_> i'm working on 4.19 and 4.4.
13:04:12 <pave1> I'm reviewing 6.1.129, 130
13:07:30 <jki> anything else?
13:08:08 <jki> 5
13:08:10 <jki> 4
13:08:11 <jki> 3
13:08:13 <jki> 2
13:08:15 <jki> 1
13:08:17 <jki> #topic Kernel release status
13:08:26 <jki> all lights green again
13:08:49 <jki> anything to add?
13:09:11 <jki> 5
13:09:13 <jki> 4
13:09:14 <jki> 3
13:09:16 <jki> 2
13:09:18 <jki> 1
13:09:19 <jki> #topic Kernel testing
13:09:54 <arisut> I'm trying to use the gitlab configurations on kernelci
13:10:57 <arisut> KernelCI team suggested to add configurations to the kernel repository
13:11:09 <arisut> is that a possibility ?
13:11:19 <jki> which configs? kernel configs?
13:11:42 <arisut> cip-kernel-config
13:12:11 <pave1> Iwamatsu-san normally maintains that.
13:12:27 <jki> right, and the sematic is important to CIP
13:12:44 <jki> we can replicate them, but it may be tricky to maintain them in kernel ci
13:12:59 <jki> and what is the "kernel repository" BTW?
13:13:03 <jki> surely not upstream
13:13:05 <arisut> that is one possibility
13:13:27 <arisut> adding the configuration in the CIP kernel repository
13:13:38 <jki> that makes no sense
13:13:54 <jki> kernel configs are not maintained inside kernel trees anymore
13:14:12 <pave1> it is quite important to be able to test mainline trees.
13:14:38 <jki> yes, but not via upstream's defconfigs
13:14:57 <jki> that's why there are separate ones to enable more features when testing
13:15:07 <arisut> testing mainline trees with the same CIP configurations?
13:15:07 <pave1> .gitlab.ci already breaks that, but adding also configs would be step in wrong direction.
13:15:09 <patersonc> I guess the question is - what configs does CIP actually want/need to test?
13:15:33 <jki> what we define in our config(s)
13:16:24 <jki> yes, adding .gitlab.ci was an unnneed move for our kernel
13:16:46 <jki> i'm sure we can eventually drop it again
13:16:49 <patersonc> Well we can remove it soon when we move to KernelCI
13:16:55 <jki> exactly
13:17:02 <pave1> arisut. yes, testing mainline or stable with our configs is valuable when bisecting.
13:17:13 <arisut> pave1, I see
13:17:43 <patersonc> I guess we'll have to find a way to use the out-of-tree configs arisut
13:18:17 <jki> what does kernelci do otherwise?
13:18:37 <jki> they surely don't ask Linus to add a .config for testing purposes
13:19:00 <arisut> KernelCI use fragments of config saved in kernelCI configuration file
13:21:32 <jki> can we define our own fragments?
13:21:41 <arisut> yes
13:21:46 <jki> baseline is likely then the defconfig
13:22:01 <iwamatsu> sorry, I'm late
13:22:01 <arisut> That's true
13:22:09 <jki> we would only have to generate a fragment that expresses the delta from there to cip config
13:22:27 <arisut> right, that is probably the best way
13:23:45 <arisut> I will look into it, thanks
13:23:47 <jki> okay - then we have a plan for that :)
13:23:48 <patersonc> Would the fragments need to be the same for each kernel version?
13:23:49 <jki> thanks!
13:23:58 <patersonc> I guess they could be
13:24:03 <jki> probably not
13:24:10 <pave1> Patersonc. likely not.
13:24:29 <arisut> patersonc, depend from the delta i suppose
13:24:32 <jki> they will already be different per arch
13:24:35 <arisut> of each version
13:24:50 <arisut> yes
13:24:55 <jki> goal for is still one merged config per arch and version
13:25:01 <jki> btw: https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-kernel/cip-kernel-config/-/merge_requests/115
13:25:15 <jki> iwamatsu: please have a look
13:26:01 <iwamatsu> Yes, I will check it.
13:27:16 <jki> will solve the problem that some people only patched the merged configs now, breaking regeneration
13:27:24 <jki> ok
13:27:38 <jki> anything else on configs?
13:27:42 <jki> or on testing?
13:28:43 <jki> 5
13:28:45 <jki> 4
13:28:47 <jki> 3
13:28:48 <jki> 2
13:28:50 <jki> 1
13:28:53 <jki> #topic AOB
13:29:17 <jki> tomorrow is E-TSC - any inputs from that
13:30:32 <jki> are we still on track with maintaining 4.4 + 4.19 ourselves?
13:30:46 <uli_> looks ok so far
13:31:09 <arisut> release scripts as been added on gitlab?
13:31:34 <jki> thanks for the reminder
13:31:43 <jki> any news on that?
13:32:00 <arisut> maybe this could be a AI
13:32:43 <jki> yeah, just checking who to assign it to ;)
13:32:56 <arisut> right
13:33:10 <pave1> I will send notes to the list, but they are meant for copy/pasting, not direct exec.
13:33:33 <jki> iwamatsu... you wanted to share as well
13:33:44 <jki> will add you both then
13:34:07 <pave1> and I suspect everyone has version modified for their environment, because they depend on it.
13:34:26 <pave1> plus uli likely has a copy as well .-)
13:34:51 <uli_> i copied my first announcement from iwamatsu-san, then i copied my own for every release
13:35:13 <arisut> would be nice to add a config file and make it work on virtualenv
13:35:34 <iwamatsu> I will share it.
13:35:45 <jki> perfect
13:35:53 <jki> anything to add for tomorrow regarding maintenance?
13:37:03 <jki> if not: status 6.12, where are we?
13:37:49 <patersonc> pave1 are you still planning to run your script that highlights what is missing from CIP commits in 6.12 compared to 6.1?
13:38:13 <pave1> Next steps are agreeing on configs, and porting changes from 6.1cip
13:38:31 <iwamatsu> I send to ML about the config, but have not received a reply.
13:39:00 <jki> then I can remind folks again
13:39:27 <pave1> PPP
13:40:01 <pave1> maybe we should agree on forking the tree from specific version tommorow.
13:40:37 <jki> what should the TSC be asked then?
13:40:51 <jki> we do have the ok already to start 6.12 development
13:41:01 <jki> which naturally includes forking off
13:41:18 <jki> plus there was the call for backports to 6.12 as well
13:41:32 <jki> I suppose no one used that yet - or had to use it
13:41:36 <pave1> "We'll fork 6.12 from 6.12.123. Is everyone ok with that?"
13:41:42 <pave1> I guess.
13:42:15 <pave1> Or maybe we just need to agree between ourselves.
13:42:36 <jki> were there any backports recently that were missing 6.12 support?
13:43:12 <pave1> there was such series this week,yes.
13:43:26 <jki> iwamatsu: where is your call for configs again?
13:43:54 <jki> pavel: did you give that feedback already? link?
13:44:32 <pave1> They said they are aware of the issue...
13:44:59 <pave1> and it is really not a problem, will handle it
13:45:16 <pave1> with the rest when running the script.
13:45:35 <pave1> Would have to search for the link.
13:45:38 <jki> found the series
13:46:15 <iwamatsu> jki: I will ping again to ML
13:46:49 <pave1> What about "pavel will write an email with version to fork from later today"
13:47:09 <pave1> and we'll get things moving on the tsc?
13:48:16 <jki> well, we will try :)
13:48:26 <pave1> Ok .-)
13:48:52 <jki> good
13:49:32 <jki> then I had on my list: "feedback / next steps CVE triage tooling"
13:50:11 <jki> my colleague is absent to refresh my memories, and masami is also not here today
13:50:58 <jki> anthing to add, on that or other points for tomorrow?
13:53:18 <jki> 5
13:53:22 <jki> 4
13:53:24 <jki> 3
13:53:26 <jki> 2
13:53:29 <jki> 1
13:53:40 <jki> #endmeeting