I can build a 2.4.21-rc7 Athlon single processor kernel and modules
without problem.
When I enable SMP, most (but not all) modules have unresolved symbols.
This is basic stuff like prink and kmalloc. I've tried both with and
without symbol versioning.
The build line was:
make clean && make dep && make bzImage && make modules && make
modules_install
I'm building on RedHat 7.3.
#rpm -q gcc binutils modutils
gcc-2.96-113
binutils-2.11.93.0.2-11
modutils-2.4.18-3.7x
I'm not on the list. Please CC me.
-Dan
On Wednesday 04 June 2003 02:28, Dan Christian wrote:
Hi Dan,
> I can build a 2.4.21-rc7 Athlon single processor kernel and modules
> without problem.
> When I enable SMP, most (but not all) modules have unresolved symbols.
> This is basic stuff like prink and kmalloc. I've tried both with and
> without symbol versioning.
> The build line was:
> make clean && make dep && make bzImage && make modules && make
> modules_install
> I'm building on RedHat 7.3.
> #rpm -q gcc binutils modutils
> gcc-2.96-113
> binutils-2.11.93.0.2-11
> modutils-2.4.18-3.7x
> I'm not on the list. Please CC me.
w/o your .config a most impossible mission to fix this up.
Just a guess: Did you switch from UP to SMP with out doing "make mrproper"?
ciao, Marc
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:28:41 -0700,
Dan Christian <[email protected]> wrote:
>I can build a 2.4.21-rc7 Athlon single processor kernel and modules
>without problem.
>
>When I enable SMP, most (but not all) modules have unresolved symbols.
On 2.4 kernels, you must make mrproper when switching between SMP and
UP.
On 06.04, Dan Christian wrote:
> I can build a 2.4.21-rc7 Athlon single processor kernel and modules
> without problem.
>
> When I enable SMP, most (but not all) modules have unresolved symbols.
> This is basic stuff like prink and kmalloc. I've tried both with and
> without symbol versioning.
>
> The build line was:
> make clean && make dep && make bzImage && make modules && make
> modules_install
>
You're missing a make install, I think ( at least this is what I do,
perhaps something is redundant:
make clean
make dep
make bzImage
make install <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
make modules
make modules_install
Wthout the make install yu don't have nor the new kernel nor the System.map
in /boot.
--
J.A. Magallon <[email protected]> \ Software is like sex:
werewolf.able.es \ It's better when it's free
Mandrake Linux release 9.2 (Cooker) for i586
Linux 2.4.21-rc7-jam1 (gcc 3.3 (Mandrake Linux 9.2 3.3-1mdk))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
J.A. Magallon wrote:
> You're missing a make install, I think ( at least this is what I do,
> perhaps something is redundant:
make install only works if you have something like "install_kernel.sh"
script available in your system. not all systems have that. so it might
just fail. and there is no problem by copying the System.map and bzImage
by hand to the /boot directory
- --
Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration
==========================================================
Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN
Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343
http://www.tequila.jp
==========================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+3b0WjBz/yQjBxz8RAj+3AKDJj10rIQqgCSlBJbqUbp4GImoU5QCdFswF
z+rzMeBmzsWZOxscKODMNNg=
=AmJW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wednesday 04 June 2003 02:34, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
> J.A. Magallon wrote:
> > You're missing a make install, I think ( at least this is what I
> > do, perhaps something is redundant:
>
> make install only works if you have something like
> "install_kernel.sh" script available in your system. not all systems
> have that. so it might just fail. and there is no problem by copying
> the System.map and bzImage by hand to the /boot directory
Right. I just copy by hand.
The kernel will boot just fine, but it can't load most of it's modules.
-Dan
On Tuesday 03 June 2003 17:32, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
> Just a guess: Did you switch from UP to SMP with out doing "make
> mrproper"?
>
> ciao, Marc
No, I didn't do "make mrproper". I'll try that.
It used to be that it wasn't needed and it liked to blow away .config
(an extreme mis-feature if I ever saw one).
Thanks,
-Dan
On Wednesday 04 June 2003 09:20, John Appleby wrote:
> > No, I didn't do "make mrproper". I'll try that.
> >
> > It used to be that it wasn't needed and it liked to blow away
> > .config (an extreme mis-feature if I ever saw one).
>
> Not a mis-feature for those making diffs on the kernel tree and not
> wanting their .config to be included erroneously :)
>
> Regards,
>
> John
"make mrproper" fixes it.
For the record, I think this stinks!
"make mrproper" should be an expert only utility because it does blow
away valuable configuration information (a painfull lesson that can
only be learned "the hard way", since the README neglicts to mention
this). For that matter, the README makes it look like creating a
config from scratch (all 1500+ options) is no big deal!
"make clean; make dep" should have been enough for any config changes
(it used to be in the past).
-Dan
Dan Christian wrote:
>
>"make mrproper" fixes it.
>
>For the record, I think this stinks!
>
>"make mrproper" should be an expert only utility because it does blow
>away valuable configuration information (a painfull lesson that can
>only be learned "the hard way", since the README neglicts to mention
>this). For that matter, the README makes it look like creating a
>config from scratch (all 1500+ options) is no big deal!
>
>
Most developers have a std config file that they simply copy over, and
run "make oldconfig". This is why menuconfig, and xconfig get broken
every few patches.
--
There is no such thing as obsolete hardware.
Merely hardware that other people don't want.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory <[email protected]>
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Samuel Flory wrote:
> Dan Christian wrote:
>
> >
> >"make mrproper" fixes it.
> >
> >For the record, I think this stinks!
> >
> >"make mrproper" should be an expert only utility because it does blow
> >away valuable configuration information (a painfull lesson that can
> >only be learned "the hard way", since the README neglicts to mention
> >this). For that matter, the README makes it look like creating a
> >config from scratch (all 1500+ options) is no big deal!
> >
> >
>
> Most developers have a std config file that they simply copy over, and
> run "make oldconfig". This is why menuconfig, and xconfig get broken
> every few patches.
Yes. I was expecting somebody to be a bit more 'direct'.
$ cd /usr/src/linux-whatever
$ cp .config ..
$ make mrproper
$ cp ../.config .
$ make oldconfig
$ make dep ; make bzImage ; make modules ; make modules_install
...trivial...
FYI, a <not recommended by many who have gotten burned> easy way to
make quick changes in the .config is to edit .config directly, then
execute `make oldconfig`. This usually works so you don't have to
answer a thousand questions.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
On Mer, 2003-06-04 at 19:06, Dan Christian wrote:
> "make mrproper" fixes it.
>
> For the record, I think this stinks!
Fixed in 2.5 - but rewriting the config system for the stable release
is "problematic"