1 |
Jakub Moc wrote: |
2 |
> It not only doesn't work for me, |
3 |
|
4 |
Bug please! :) |
5 |
|
6 |
> it doesn't work for majority of people |
7 |
> that have responded on this thread. So, something's wrong there I guess? :) |
8 |
|
9 |
I don't regard this thread as quantifiable measure. Nevertheless, lets |
10 |
count the number of successes and failures on this thread so far: |
11 |
|
12 |
jakub: failure |
13 |
aslandis: failure |
14 |
cardoe: failure |
15 |
|
16 |
wltjr: success |
17 |
nightmorph: success |
18 |
seemant: success |
19 |
kloeri: success |
20 |
uberlord: success |
21 |
|
22 |
gentoodoo: 1 each way |
23 |
|
24 |
I'm not asking for more people to add experiences, and I'm not saying |
25 |
that in-kernel is any more reliable than alsa-driver. I'm just pointing |
26 |
out how easy it is to misinterpret the information on a thread, and how |
27 |
you cannot make the above statement. |
28 |
|
29 |
Maybe this wasn't a serious comment, in which case I apologise for |
30 |
taking it seriously. Email sucks for communication. |
31 |
|
32 |
> Hmmm, I'm not entirely sure what are you responding to here? What I said |
33 |
> was that "ALSA upstream won't accept bugs about in-kernel drivers" - now |
34 |
> how's that related to whether you (or kernel upstream) support them or not? |
35 |
|
36 |
Sorry, I can see how my response wasn't clear. |
37 |
|
38 |
When I say "I support" I mean that I accept the bugs on Gentoo bugzilla |
39 |
and work them through til resolution. So, you're correct that me |
40 |
supporting something is not related to any decisions made upstream. |
41 |
|
42 |
However, many bugs which pass through my "support" follow a common |
43 |
pattern: I request lots of useful info, am not able to immediately solve |
44 |
the problem myself, so I instruct the user how to file the bug upstream. |
45 |
In most cases they do so, and I track the upstream bug. And it's these |
46 |
cases I'm referring to - I've never seen any upstream bugs rejected due |
47 |
to them using in-kernel drivers. |
48 |
|
49 |
Please understand that it wouldn't make much sense for them to reject it |
50 |
either. There is no difference personnel-wise between the people who |
51 |
release alsa-driver and the people who send patches into the kernel. If |
52 |
they were to refuse bugs from people who use kernel drivers then why do |
53 |
they spend a considerable amount of time regularly synchronising patches? |
54 |
|
55 |
> Additionally - forcing people to upgrade kernel for their sound issues |
56 |
> is not a solution for many of them. Kernel upgrades tend to break lots |
57 |
> of stuff on every minor version bump (and it's not only external modules |
58 |
> that upstream seems to plain hate and ignore mostly). Not exactly what |
59 |
> users would like to see when all they are trying to get is working |
60 |
> sound. |
61 |
|
62 |
Beyond the usual statements that we aren't forcing anything: |
63 |
|
64 |
I will not deny that there is some user convenience gained by having the |
65 |
drivers separated from the kernel. Conversely, such packages are |
66 |
maintenance nightmares and are susceptible to entire classes of bugs |
67 |
that they would not be otherwise, and these are often passed onto the |
68 |
user. Sometimes we are even forced to take drastic measures such as |
69 |
marking heavily experimental code stable. |
70 |
|
71 |
The problem I'm solving here, I am solving from a development |
72 |
perspective. We have duplicated code and duplicated effort, and one of |
73 |
the copies currently doesn't have any real manpower taking care of it. |
74 |
|
75 |
> Plus it's lot easier (and faster) to get patches into external |
76 |
> drivers than get them accepted into kernel. |
77 |
|
78 |
I'm not sure that it is any easier, because the process of patch |
79 |
submission (file a bug) is the same. |
80 |
|
81 |
It may be faster, but I don't think thats a big factor. We generally do |
82 |
a good job keeping on top of the kernel bug list and regularly doing |
83 |
bugfix kernel releases. Although it may be faster for maintainers to |
84 |
supply new packages like alsa-driver, it's not *that* much different. |
85 |
|
86 |
All of the complaints so far seem to be regarding that *handling bugs* |
87 |
is more convenient for certain use cases when supported ALSA drivers are |
88 |
provided by an out-of-kernel package. (for clarity: a kernel driver not |
89 |
working IS a kernel bug, even if you have alternative ways of getting |
90 |
that hardware working) |
91 |
|
92 |
There is some truth here. However, more importantly in my eyes, our |
93 |
development resources are thin and there are currently 0 people standing |
94 |
behind alsa-driver. Additionally our processes across the entire Gentoo |
95 |
tree are based on the assumptions that things work, and bugs are treated |
96 |
as exceptions. Sure, we accept that bugs exist, and there are plenty of |
97 |
them, and we look to improve our methods of handling them (I have |
98 |
certainly done this a lot for the kernel) but we don't revolve our |
99 |
entire system around the assumption that the packages in the stable tree |
100 |
have bugs. |
101 |
|
102 |
What I'm trying to say is that even though there are some downsides |
103 |
here, the overall process is improved given the resources we have. |
104 |
|
105 |
Even though I'm sure my personal opinion is clear, I don't have a strong |
106 |
stake in the ALSA herd. The real reason why alsa-driver is not getting |
107 |
any support behind it right now is that nobody is standing behind it. |
108 |
|
109 |
If someone wants to step up and take over maintenance of alsa-driver, |
110 |
and put the required amount of time/effort into maintaining such a large |
111 |
kernel code base outside of the kernel, then I can accept that. I can |
112 |
accept that not everyone shares my views, and although I unintentionally |
113 |
managed to frustrate the previous maintainer a few times, I did accept |
114 |
that he was willing to stick by ideas just as I was prepared to stick by |
115 |
mine. |
116 |
|
117 |
That said, the newly formed ALSA herd seems to share my opinion and |
118 |
don't seem prepared to properly maintain alsa-driver, so I can see it |
119 |
slowly becoming lesser supported. If anyone wants to change this, |
120 |
approach the 3 developers listed in my original mail, share your ideas, |
121 |
and see if you can help out with ALSA maintenance and apply your ideas. |
122 |
|
123 |
> > Interestingly in this case, the in-kernel driver is a touch newer than |
124 |
>> the hda-intel one. It includes support for a few more hardware devices. |
125 |
>> Again these are only very small differences though. |
126 |
> |
127 |
> As said, it's not about code being newer or older, it's about having two |
128 |
> different branches of the code. |
129 |
|
130 |
Agreed. As stated, the point I was making is that they are the same |
131 |
codebase. The above was just an interesting but unrelated observation, |
132 |
sorry if I threw you off track. |
133 |
|
134 |
> One works for someone, the other works |
135 |
> for someone else. What's exactly the benefit from trying to kill support |
136 |
> for upstream ALSA code and forcing people to use in-kernel drivers |
137 |
> (beyond what you see as 'duplicated' maintenance effort)? Users honestly |
138 |
> don't care much about 'duplicated' effort, they want a working sound on |
139 |
> their boxes. |
140 |
|
141 |
This is a very valid concern. My view is certainly affected by 2 years |
142 |
of kernel bug handling and not really seeing the issues that people |
143 |
describe (where alsa-driver works and in-kernel does not for something |
144 |
other than user error) with any regularity. |
145 |
|
146 |
There are reasons that I am still working on kernel bugs after 2 years |
147 |
though. Firstly, the kernel code base is of personal interest to me, and |
148 |
I enjoy being part of the upstream community and finding more ways to |
149 |
contribute. Secondly, I enjoy a challenge and I enjoy the problem |
150 |
solving aspect of handling bugs. Kernel bugs are great brain food and I |
151 |
like seeing them through. |
152 |
|
153 |
So, I will put forward a claim, which you are free to regard as |
154 |
completely ridiculous: |
155 |
|
156 |
Everyone who is claiming that alsa-driver works and in-kernel does not: |
157 |
a) has not actually tried both |
158 |
or |
159 |
b) has tried both but has only attempted to reproduce the issue on 1, |
160 |
or is otherwise mistaken about their issue which does infact exist |
161 |
in both "codebases" (I quote that word as I interpret them as the |
162 |
same) |
163 |
or |
164 |
c) is attempting to use the wrong module, or is mixing alsa-driver and |
165 |
in-kernel modules, or is otherwise making a user-level error |
166 |
or |
167 |
d) is referring to a large difference in driver versions (e.g. 2.6.3 |
168 |
does not work but alsa-driver does! or maybe not quite that extreme!) |
169 |
or |
170 |
e) is not comparing the same environments (my card works fine in |
171 |
alsa-driver on System A, but does not work with in-kernel drivers on |
172 |
System B, therefore alsa-driver works and in-kernel does not!) |
173 |
or |
174 |
f) is LYING |
175 |
|
176 |
I'm fully 100% serious on the above. I challenge you to PROVE ME WRONG. |
177 |
I secretly hope you do, since that means I'll get a couple of |
178 |
interesting bugs to handle and I may even be able to solve them myself. |
179 |
|
180 |
Thanks, |
181 |
Daniel |
182 |
-- |
183 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |