CentOS virt - Jul 2015 - missing bnx2x firmware files in Xen4CentOS CentOS6 kernel 3.18.12-11

On 07/07/2015 12:00 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 10:36 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at
centos.org> wrote:
>>> On 07/05/2015 11:35 AM, T.Weyergraf wrote:
>>>> Hi folks
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned in the subject, kernel-3.18.12-11 is missing
firmware files
>>>> required to run Broadcom/Qlogic network cards, driven by bnx2x
driver.
>>>> While in the source-rpm, there is a bnx2/bnx2x firmware tgz
being
>>>> applied during the rpm build, along with a patch adding these
firmware
>>>> files to firmware/Makefile, neither the tgz nor the patch
contain the
>>>> required firmware files. In 3.18, the driver bumped to version
>>>> 1.710.51-0, requiring the following firmware files/versions to
work:
>>>>
>>>> firmware:       bnx2x/bnx2x-e2-7.10.51.0.fw
>>>> firmware:       bnx2x/bnx2x-e1h-7.10.51.0.fw
>>>> firmware:       bnx2x/bnx2x-e1-7.10.51.0.fw
>>>>
>>>> I helped myself by either copying the required firmware-files
to the
>>>> target-machines' /lib/firmware/bnx2x dir and ultimately by
adding the
>>>> files to the source-rpm along with a new Makefile patch and
rebuilding
>>>> the kernel rpms.
>>>>
>>>> However, as bnx2x NICs seem quite commonplace these days, I
suggest to
>>>> fix this 'upstream'. If required, I can provide the
(trivial) patch. I
>>>> pulled the firmware-files from a CentOS 7 stock kernel.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> Thomas,
>>>
>>> Please see if this kernel solves your issues:
>>>
>>> http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/xen-kernel/x86_64/Packages/
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Johnny Hughes
>>
>> There was a response, "Nope, those did not work". See:
>>
>> https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=9030#c23582
> 
> That is a different person (I think .. maybe not), so I will wait for a
> reply here too and I will make sure I have the latest fw files from
> kernel.org again.
OH .. I see, I did not get the firmware files, but their git pointer info :)

I will rebuild and repost.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20150707/baefc97e/attachment-0002.sig>

On 07/07/2015 12:20 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 12:00 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 07/07/2015 10:36 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at
centos.org> wrote:
>>>> On 07/05/2015 11:35 AM, T.Weyergraf wrote:
>>>>> Hi folks
>>>>>
>>>>> As mentioned in the subject, kernel-3.18.12-11 is missing
firmware files
>>>>> required to run Broadcom/Qlogic network cards, driven by
bnx2x driver.
>>>>> While in the source-rpm, there is a bnx2/bnx2x firmware tgz
being
>>>>> applied during the rpm build, along with a patch adding
these firmware
>>>>> files to firmware/Makefile, neither the tgz nor the patch
contain the
>>>>> required firmware files. In 3.18, the driver bumped to
version
>>>>> 1.710.51-0, requiring the following firmware files/versions
to work:
>>>>>
>>>>> firmware:       bnx2x/bnx2x-e2-7.10.51.0.fw
>>>>> firmware:       bnx2x/bnx2x-e1h-7.10.51.0.fw
>>>>> firmware:       bnx2x/bnx2x-e1-7.10.51.0.fw
>>>>>
>>>>> I helped myself by either copying the required
firmware-files to the
>>>>> target-machines' /lib/firmware/bnx2x dir and ultimately
by adding the
>>>>> files to the source-rpm along with a new Makefile patch and
rebuilding
>>>>> the kernel rpms.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, as bnx2x NICs seem quite commonplace these days, I
suggest to
>>>>> fix this 'upstream'. If required, I can provide the
(trivial) patch. I
>>>>> pulled the firmware-files from a CentOS 7 stock kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>> Thomas,
>>>>
>>>> Please see if this kernel solves your issues:
>>>>
>>>> http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/xen-kernel/x86_64/Packages/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Johnny Hughes
>>>
>>> There was a response, "Nope, those did not work". See:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=9030#c23582
>>
>> That is a different person (I think .. maybe not), so I will wait for a
>> reply here too and I will make sure I have the latest fw files from
>> kernel.org again.
> 
> OH .. I see, I did not get the firmware files, but their git pointer info
:)
> 
> I will rebuild and repost.
> 
Please try the packages that are now in the same location.

http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/xen-kernel/x86_64/Packages/


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20150707/0f378fd7/attachment-0002.sig>

Hi all

On 07/07/2015 10:30 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 12:20 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
[.... loads of stuff deleted .... ]
>> OH .. I see, I did not get the firmware files, but their git pointer
info :)
>>
>> I will rebuild and repost.
>>
> Please try the packages that are now in the same location.
>
> http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/xen-kernel/x86_64/Packages/
Yes, I can confirm the first packages were broken. I'll try those 
tomorrow, when I am back at work. However, they look fine. First of all, 
all required files are present and I extracted and md5sum-ed them 
against the ones from my kernel ( of which I know they work ). All 
md5sums are fine.

Thanks a lot for the quick fix.

Are you going to push these packages to the Xen4CentOS repo? The reason 
I ask, is that I use Xen4CentOS at work, where I run a fairly large 
infrastructure on Xen4CentOS in a production environment. Mixing bug 
fixes with minor updates - repo version is at 3.18.12 while you provide 
3.18.17 - is a bit of a problem, as I need to validate the new kernel 
version before pushing it into production (read: run some tests, check 
if everything works).
I recon that updated versions of LTS kernels incorporate bugfixes, which 
are desirable anyway. But i'd rather wait until they are pushed to 
Xen4CentOS before "arguing them into production". Hence my question on
the timeline.
I'll give the packages a spin anyway tomorrow and come back to report my 
results.

Again, thanks a lot. And, by the way, rest assured that the whole 
Xen4CentOS effort is very much appreciated and matters a lot.

Regards
Thomas