Bug 308983

Summary: default -> bigsmp not handled in KMP update process
Product: [openSUSE] openSUSE 10.3 Reporter: Bernhard Walle <bwalle>
Component: libzyppAssignee: Stefan Schubert <schubi>
Status: RESOLVED INVALID QA Contact: Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov>
Severity: Major    
Priority: P5 - None CC: dmacvicar, kkaempf, ma, schubi
Version: Beta 2   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: i686   
OS: Other   
Whiteboard:
Found By: Development Services Priority:
Business Priority: Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: --- IT Deployment: ---
Attachments: yast logs

Description Bernhard Walle 2007-09-08 14:35:27 UTC
The update process now installs the "bigsmp" kernel on each machine that has PAE. On 10.2, that machine (Laptop) had the "default" kernel installed. So far, so good. The only problem is that KMPs are not correctly updated, i.e. my ndiswrapper KMP is updated to the new ndiswrapper KMP of the "default" flavour, not the "bigsmp" falvour. I think it's the same with every other KMP.
Comment 1 Klaus Kämpf 2007-09-09 09:58:52 UTC
Logs please
Comment 2 Klaus Kämpf 2007-09-09 10:00:40 UTC
Hmm, since *-kmp-debug are installed, available *-kmp-debug are valid upgrade candidates.

This needs special consideration in distribution upgrade for >=4GB machines.
Comment 3 Klaus Kämpf 2007-09-09 10:01:01 UTC
Still, logs would be nice.
Comment 4 Bernhard Walle 2007-09-09 10:14:48 UTC
(In reply to comment #2 from Klaus Kämpf)
> This needs special consideration in distribution upgrade for >=4GB machines.

No, not 4 GB machines. My laptop has not 4 GB. And that's exactly why the bigsmp kernel was *not* installed in 10.2. The bigsmp kernel is now always installed if the CPU is PAE-aware because then, NX (no execute) protection can be used.

Logs are coming.
Comment 5 Bernhard Walle 2007-09-09 10:17:23 UTC
Created attachment 162887 [details]
yast logs
Comment 7 Bernhard Walle 2007-09-18 11:42:09 UTC
No.
Comment 8 Stefan Schubert 2007-09-18 13:59:58 UTC
I cannot see very much in these logfiles cause we have reduced the logging here.
It could be that there is a bug, but without the solvertestcase we cannot do very much. Feel free to reopen the bug if you can provide the testcase.

P.S.: Are you in "Schwab-Mode" ? :-)