Search Criteria
Package Base Details: linux-ck
Package Actions
Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/linux-ck.git (read-only, click to copy) |
---|---|
Submitter: | graysky |
Maintainer: | graysky |
Last Packager: | graysky |
Votes: | 461 |
Popularity: | 0.95 |
First Submitted: | 2011-07-22 14:51 (UTC) |
Last Updated: | 2024-03-16 18:02 (UTC) |
Latest Comments
« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .. 305 Next › Last »
simona commented on 2023-05-02 09:12 (UTC)
==> dkms install --no-depmod vboxhost/7.0.8_OSE -k 6.3.1-1-ck-generic-v3
Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 6.3.1-1-ck-generic-v3 (x86_64)
Consult /var/lib/dkms/vboxhost/7.0.8_OSE/build/make.log for more information.
zerophase commented on 2023-05-02 05:21 (UTC)
Anyone else getting errors when trying to build 6.3.1-1?
Fails on both clang and gcc.
gbin commented on 2023-04-11 01:34 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-11 01:46 (UTC) by gbin)
I have the same one: 57c562c3cd2753f232549cab05c8ad770ed848ae86401619c7581bdffaeea4fe
I just checked the given signature for the file with this hash:
graysky commented on 2023-04-10 16:30 (UTC)
I agree/I get the same checksum
BS86 commented on 2023-04-10 16:12 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-10 16:23 (UTC) by BS86)
something is strange.
On my notebook I could build the update on release day. on my Desktop that I can only update now, I get a sha256sum mismatch when trying to build. No matter how often I download https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/linux-6.2.10.tar.xz the sha256sum I get is 57c562c3cd2753f232549cab05c8ad770ed848ae86401619c7581bdffaeea4fe not 7de856a284e57e23b8744b2708fe49d49aebe3510c3eee2dd6342e3b5e46ecf2 like expected in the PKGBUILD - is upstream broken/infected or is something off on my end?
Edit: I did now download the file on my phone using mobile internet, and the sha256sum is 57c562c3cd2753f232549cab05c8ad770ed848ae86401619c7581bdffaeea4fe too - so something definitely changed upstream after the release ...
graysky commented on 2023-03-26 11:34 (UTC)
Thanks @glitsj16 - I will update the repo with 6.2.8-2. Others please comment here if you notice any performance regressions.
glitsj16 commented on 2023-03-25 06:42 (UTC)
Building 6.2.8-2 in progress. But after your latest rebase the ck-hrtimer patches are exactly the same as what I used in my 6.2.7-1 / 6.2.8-1. Can confirm both build fine. Didn't notice any regressions or performance drops compared to 6.1.12-1 (the latest available in your repo). All in all I think the 6.2.y is looking good now.
graysky commented on 2023-03-25 06:11 (UTC) (edited on 2023-03-25 06:14 (UTC) by graysky)
Ah, I missed that one. See here: https://github.com/graysky2/linux-patches/commit/a8be5531ff07e300525c20bdbbe38cc6a665a0c4
Does building 6.2.8-2 work for you? Any performance issues?
glitsj16 commented on 2023-03-25 02:46 (UTC)
@graysky I do notice a difference between our 0004-hrtimer-Replace-all-schedule-timeout-1-with-schedule.patch files. Here's mine:
https://gist.github.com/glitsj16/b082da47c46ef9f3cb444798b32b35f7
glitsj16 commented on 2023-03-24 08:31 (UTC)
@graysky I'm doing a rebuild of 6.2.8 using your rebased patches right now. My earlier build didn't have the 0002-bpf-x86-Fix-IP-after-emitting-call-depth-accounting.patch, so I included that too. Will post the results here asap. Thanks for your work!
« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .. 305 Next › Last »