# make V=1 modules_install install
make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=arch/x86_64/vdso install
cp vdso.so.dbg /lib/modules/2.6.23-rc3-mm1/vdso/vdso.so
cp: cannot stat `vdso.so.dbg': No such file or directory
make[1]: *** [vdso.so] Error 1
make: *** [install] Error 2
However, it's in place looks like:
# ls -l arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso*
-rw-r--r-- 1 ad ad 291 Aug 22 13:46 arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso-note.S
-rw-r--r-- 1 ad ad 830 Aug 22 13:53 arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso-note.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 ad ad 45 Aug 22 13:46 arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso-start.S
-rw-r--r-- 1 ad ad 753 Aug 22 13:53 arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso-start.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 ad ad 3257 Aug 22 13:53 arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso-syms.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 ad ad 58 Aug 22 13:46 arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso.S
-rw-r--r-- 1 ad ad 2150 Aug 22 13:53 arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso.lds
-rw-r--r-- 1 ad ad 2163 Aug 22 13:46 arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso.lds.S
-rw-r--r-- 1 ad ad 4905 Aug 22 13:53 arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 ad ad 4104 Aug 22 13:53 arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso.so
===> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ad ad 5482 Aug 22 13:53 arch/x86_64/vdso/vdso.so.dbg
That is fixed by the later version of the vdso-install patches I sent later.
I thought Andrew had already incorporated the fixed versions.
Thanks,
Roland
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Roland McGrath <[email protected]> wrote:
> That is fixed by the later version of the vdso-install patches I sent later.
> I thought Andrew had already incorporated the fixed versions.
>
Those patches are in Andi's tree. His tree has the old versions. The
patches are inter-tangled so it is non-trivial for me to generate
incremental patches on top of Andi's tree which bring his old patches up to
date with the new ones. I could of course do so, but it'd be better if
Andi's tree weren't carrying old versions of
x86_64-ia32-vdso-install-unstripped-copies-on-disk and
x86_64-vdso-install-unstripped-copies-on-disk
Please resend those patches to Andi.
> Those patches are in Andi's tree. His tree has the old versions. The
> patches are inter-tangled so it is non-trivial for me to generate
> incremental patches on top of Andi's tree which bring his old patches up to
> date with the new ones. I could of course do so, but it'd be better if
> Andi's tree weren't carrying old versions of
> x86_64-ia32-vdso-install-unstripped-copies-on-disk and
> x86_64-vdso-install-unstripped-copies-on-disk
>
> Please resend those patches to Andi.
These haven't changed since I sent them (including to Andi) on August 12.
Thanks,
Roland
On Wednesday 22 August 2007 23:56:38 Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Those patches are in Andi's tree. His tree has the old versions. The
> > patches are inter-tangled so it is non-trivial for me to generate
> > incremental patches on top of Andi's tree which bring his old patches up to
> > date with the new ones. I could of course do so, but it'd be better if
> > Andi's tree weren't carrying old versions of
> > x86_64-ia32-vdso-install-unstripped-copies-on-disk and
> > x86_64-vdso-install-unstripped-copies-on-disk
> >
> > Please resend those patches to Andi.
>
> These haven't changed since I sent them (including to Andi) on August 12.
How come they have identical subjects and identical description? How is
anybody supposed to make sense of this?
-Andi
> How come they have identical subjects and identical description? How is
> anybody supposed to make sense of this?
Sorry, I asked Andrew and he said to send replacement patches.
I thought I was following instructions.
Thanks,
Roland
On Thursday 23 August 2007 01:16:32 Roland McGrath wrote:
> > How come they have identical subjects and identical description? How is
> > anybody supposed to make sense of this?
>
> Sorry, I asked Andrew and he said to send replacement patches.
> I thought I was following instructions.
The problem is they're two patching consecutively patching the same
file with 100% identical subject/description.
So either: they should be merged together into one patch
or the second (or first) needs a new description/subject
I right now got the second as
vdso-do-something-more-with-unstripped-copies-on-disk:
Do something with vdsos and debug information
From: Roland McGrath <[email protected]>
TBD this needs a proper changelog/subject from Roland. I have no idea what
it does
But clearly that's not an satisfactionary state. Which of the
options do you prefer?
-Andi
> The problem is they're two patching consecutively patching the same
> file with 100% identical subject/description.
>
> So either: they should be merged together into one patch
> or the second (or first) needs a new description/subject
They do the same thing for the x86_64 ia32-compat and x86_64 native vDSOs,
respectively.
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] x86_64 ia32 vDSO: install unstripped copies on disk
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] x86_64 vDSO: install unstripped copies on disk
Andrew called them
x86_64-ia32-vdso-install-unstripped-copies-on-disk
x86_64-vdso-install-unstripped-copies-on-disk
The names/subjects are not identical, but differ in having "ia32" or not.
That is really the only difference between the two patches, too.
> TBD this needs a proper changelog/subject from Roland. I have no idea what
> it does
I don't now what is unclear about the log entry. Yes, each log entry says
the same thing after the first (Subject) line. Each one relates to a
different arch/x86_64/subdirectory/Makefile that creates vDSO images.
Prepend "This applies to the x86_64/vdso native vDSO building." or
"This applies to the x86_64/ia32 vDSO building." to the log if you prefer.
Thanks,
Roland