On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 15:49 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 10.05.22 15:30, Zack Rusin wrote:
On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 14:44 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 10.05.22 14:26, Zack Rusin wrote:
On May 10, 2022, at 7:06 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis regressions@leemhuis.info wrote: On 10.05.22 02:12, Zack Rusin wrote:
> On May 9, 2022, at 6:57 AM, Hans de Goede > hdegoede@redhat.com > wrote: On 4/11/22 16:24, Zack Rusin wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 10:52 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > > > Fedora has received a bug report here: > > > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.r... > > > > > > > > >
That Fedora rawhide VMs no longer boot under the VirtualBox
> > > hypervisor after the VM has been updated to a 5.18- > > > rc# > > > kernel. > > > > > > Switching the emulated GPU from vmwaregfx to > > > VirtualBoxSVGA > > > fixes this, so this seems to be a vmwgfx driver > > > regression. > > > > > > Note I've not investigated/reproduced this myself due > > > to > > > -ENOTIME. > > > > Thanks for letting us know. Unfortunately we do not > > support > > vmwgfx on VirtualBox. I'd be happy to review patches > > related to > > this, but it's very unlikely we'd have to time to look > > at > > this > > ourselves. > > I somewhat understand where you are coming from, but this > is > not > how the kernels "no regressions" policy works.
Hans, many thx for writing your mail, I once intended to write something similar, but then forgot about it. :-/
> For the end user a regression is a regression and as > maintainers we > are supposed to make sure any regressions noticed are > fixed > before > a new kernel hits end user's systems.
I think there’s a misunderstanding here - the vmwgfx driver never supported VirtualBox. VirtualBox implementation of the svga device lacks a bunch of features,
Which from the kernel's point of view is irrelevant. If the Linux kernel's vmwgfx driver ever supported the VirtualBox implementation then things shouldn't regress with later versions.
It never did. vmwgfx is just a driver for VMware's SVGA device, it never supported anything else.
Now I'm curious and would like to understand the issue properly, if you have a minute. :-D
I didn't mean "supported" as in "officially supported", I meant as in "it ran (as in automatically bonded) on VirtualBox in one of the modes one could configure in VirtualBox for virtual GPU". And the latter is the case here afaics, or isn't it?
I wouldn't know that. But if the claim is that anyone lying about the type of device they are can hijack development then we'll need Linus to clarify that,
Feel free to ask, I doubt that will work out, but yes, in the end it's Linus decision.
i.e. if I create a PCI device that identifies itself as a random AMD GPU
That's not the case and thus a misleading example afaics.
No, that's exactly the case. VirtualBox lies in its PCI ID and claims that it's a VMware SVGA when it clearly isn't.
z