lshw doesn't have logicalname, serial number, or size for nvme device

Bug #1705064 reported by Jason Hobbs
12
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
OEM Priority Project
High
Yuan-Chen Cheng
lshw (Ubuntu)
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

There is an nvme device on my system, at PCI:0000:05:00.0.

Here is the lshw output:

https://pastebin.com/9t7Pj2pH

There is no 'logicalname', 'serial', or 'size' field given for the device.

lsblk output includes all of that info:
https://pastebin.com/P2PtZ2Rn

Upstream bug: http://www.ezix.org/project/ticket/752

tags: added: cdo-qa
tags: added: foundations-engine
description: updated
Revision history for this message
Yuan-Chen Cheng (ycheng-twn) wrote :
Changed in oem-priority:
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → High
assignee: nobody → Yuan-Chen Cheng (ycheng-twn)
tags: added: oem-priority
Revision history for this message
Yuan-Chen Cheng (ycheng-twn) wrote :

ppa for testing: https://launchpad.net/~ycheng-twn/+archive/ubuntu/lshw
TODO: change log need refine (might need to refine in patch file)

Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

Changed in lshw (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty (hamishmb) wrote :

Note that Fedora has patches in https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1329140 that fix the NVME issue - maybe these could be used in the Ubuntu package builds too?

I tried building lshw from the master branch, including the above fix (comment #1), but it didn't work. However, I can confirm the patched Fedora version works.

I would be happy to help with fixing this as this problem has been a thorn in my side for a while.

Hamish

Revision history for this message
Yuan-Chen Cheng (ycheng-twn) wrote :

per check fedora repo. I think the patch used in fedora should be the same as the one mentioned in #1. [1] vs [2]

However, it seems the maintainer of lshw wants something better. Refer to [3]

IMHO, the existing one shall works for most cases for now. We might have certain in-compatibility in the future as the maintainer land something else. However something partially works still helps us, right?

[1] https://github.com/lyonel/lshw/pull/45/commits/16e1d7b9e9a1aa69a59867de0aad6411c953fbfc
[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lshw/blob/master/f/lshw-B.02.18-nvme.patch
[3] https://ezix.org/src/pkg/lshw/pulls/27

Revision history for this message
Yuan-Chen Cheng (ycheng-twn) wrote :

I upload 02.18.85-0.3ubuntu2~p1 (focal) to https://launchpad.net/~ycheng-twn/+archive/ubuntu/lshw and it works for me.

Revision history for this message
Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty (hamishmb) wrote :

Also works for me. In my case, I ran the binary on Ubuntu 18.04 because that's what my real hardware is using.

If we can get this into Focal, that'd be great, but I wonder if we can backport into previous releases as well.

Revision history for this message
Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty (hamishmb) wrote :

Don't know if someone should mark as fix committed in this case, seeing as there are fixes out there.

Revision history for this message
Matthieu Clemenceau (mclemenceau) wrote :

Focal still has lshw 02.18.85-0.3ubuntu1, I don't see 02.18.85-0.3ubuntu2 in proposed,

the last push to proposed was 01-30-2020

Is this going to be push to proposed?

Revision history for this message
Matthieu Clemenceau (mclemenceau) wrote :

nevermind my previous comment #9, wrong bug ...

Revision history for this message
Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty (hamishmb) wrote :

Regardless, it'd be great for this to make it into the LTS release, but I don't know how to make that happen. It might also be too late, but I hope not.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers