Hi all!
I just tried compiling the current 2.5.53 kernel on alpha, and it's obviously
broken. Before I start tracking down everything, I'd like to know if somebody
already started working on the new module code and if patches exist, any
pointers etc. greatly appreciated
Thanks in advance
Markus
--
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 04:57:14PM +0100, Markus Pfeiffer wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I just tried compiling the current 2.5.53 kernel on alpha, and it's obviously
> broken. Before I start tracking down everything, I'd like to know if somebody
> already started working on the new module code and if patches exist, any
> pointers etc. greatly appreciated
Richard Henderson is working with tgafb on alpha.
I'm looking into the architecture specific Makefiles in cooperation
with Richard.
I recall alpha patches from others as well, but do not recall anything
about module support.
Sam
Hi Markus,
> I just tried compiling the current 2.5.53 kernel on alpha, and it's obviously
> broken. Before I start tracking down everything, I'd like to know if somebody
> already started working on the new module code and if patches exist, any
> pointers etc. greatly appreciated
The patches at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty work OK
for me (I used the "Alpha support for modules" one plus all required
dependencies)...
# uname -a
Linux ayse 2.5.53bk3 #1 Sun Dec 29 11:01:17 CET 2002 alpha unknown unknown
GNU/Linux
# lsmod
Module Size Used by
parport_pc 46600 0 [unsafe]
parport 41064 1 parport_pc [unsafe]
netlink_dev 2816 0
nfsd 168560 8 [unsafe]
exportfs 4424 1 nfsd
lockd 80512 2 nfsd [unsafe]
sunrpc 130624 3 nfsd lockd [unsafe]
mct_u232 9636 0
af_packet 19544 1 [unsafe]
usbserial 38296 1 mct_u232
usb_storage 135692 0
snd_usb_audio 60408 0
ov511 99096 0
snd_rawmidi 20512 1 snd_usb_audio
snd_seq_device 7068 1 snd_rawmidi
snd_pcm 89304 1 snd_usb_audio
snd_timer 16656 1 snd_pcm
snd 52696 5 snd_usb_audio snd_rawmidi snd_seq_device snd_pcm snd_timer
hid 73536 0
audio 58264 0
soundcore 5824 2 snd audio
videodev 9704 1 ov511
mousedev 8072 0
ohci_hcd 28968 0
ehci_hcd 40168 0
usbcore 115768 11 mct_u232 usbserial usb_storage snd_usb_audio ov511 hid audio ohci_hcd ehci_hcd
tmsisa 6364 1
tms380tr 54320 1 tmsisa
ipv6 236944 11 [unsafe]
rtc 8912 0
--jochen
Hi all,
appearently there are some secret channels by which one has to post his
messages for them to actually being _read_ by someone ...
Sam wrote:
> I recall alpha patches from others as well, but do not recall
anything > about module support.
Well, there is this:
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0212.2/0971.html
(Next time I'll cc' you directly :-)
But to answer the original question: _Actively_ being maintained is a
bit of an euphemism, 'occasionally being patched' is probably more accurate.
Richard Henderson and Ivan Kokshaysky are the main men behind the port.
I try to give the port the occasional bug-fix.
Cheers,
Hannes
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 04:07:09PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> appearently there are some secret channels by which one has to post his
> messages for them to actually being _read_ by someone ...
I follow lkml, but has no particular Alpha interest, so foregive me ;-)
That I do some Alpha patching is from a kbuild persepctive, not
particulary Alpha. I'm do not have tools to do so, nor any machine.
Sam
I have a spare Alpha box (in theory I made need it some day if we ever
decide to support Tru64 but that seems like a small market). I don't
know how useful it is but I could put it up outside our firewall if
that helped. I'd have to install Linux on it and I'm booked up until
Jan 9th but if you still need it then let me know.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 04:15:31PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 04:07:09PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > appearently there are some secret channels by which one has to post his
> > messages for them to actually being _read_ by someone ...
>
> I follow lkml, but has no particular Alpha interest, so foregive me ;-)
> That I do some Alpha patching is from a kbuild persepctive, not
> particulary Alpha. I'm do not have tools to do so, nor any machine.
>
> Sam
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 07:23:25AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> I have a spare Alpha box (in theory I made need it some day if we ever
> decide to support Tru64 but that seems like a small market). I don't
> know how useful it is but I could put it up outside our firewall if
> that helped. I'd have to install Linux on it and I'm booked up until
> Jan 9th but if you still need it then let me know.
Hi Larry, nice offer. But I personally would not have time hacking on Alpha.
Others may find it usefull though.
Sam
On Monday 30 December 2002 17:50, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 07:23:25AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > I have a spare Alpha box (in theory I made need it some day if we ever
> > decide to support Tru64 but that seems like a small market). I don't
> > know how useful it is but I could put it up outside our firewall if
> > that helped. I'd have to install Linux on it and I'm booked up until
> > Jan 9th but if you still need it then let me know.
>
> Hi Larry, nice offer. But I personally would not have time hacking on
> Alpha. Others may find it usefull though.
>
Well, I have an Alpha System here myself and am also "hacking" on it. But one
has also to ask oneself if there is any demand (apart from my personal
demand) for a maintained Linux/Alpha >= 2.5...
Anyway, I just installed BitKeeper and start finding my way into the code...
Markus
On Monday 30 December 2002 17:50, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> Hi Larry, nice offer. But I personally would not have time hacking on
>> Alpha. Others may find it usefull though.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 07:13:23PM +0100, Markus Pfeiffer wrote:
> Well, I have an Alpha System here myself and am also "hacking" on it. But one
> has also to ask oneself if there is any demand (apart from my personal
> demand) for a maintained Linux/Alpha >= 2.5...
> Anyway, I just installed BitKeeper and start finding my way into the code...
Hmm, this box says "AlphaStation 200 4/166". Might be interesting to
get it elevated above the level of "oversized doorstop" when attempting
to run Linux on it.
Bill
Hi Markus,
> Anyway, I just installed BitKeeper and start finding my way into the code...
Maybe setting up an own repository (like the parisc, mips, m68k, etc
people currently do using CVS) would also be a good idea, just to test out
stuff before pushing it into the main tree and to have a common code base
to work on.
This way we could apply e.g. the module patch from kernel.org and fix the
remaining parts.
just my 0,02 EURO
--jochen
> > > I have a spare Alpha box (in theory I made need it some day if we ever
> > > decide to support Tru64 but that seems like a small market). I don't
> > > know how useful it is but I could put it up outside our firewall if
> > > that helped. I'd have to install Linux on it and I'm booked up until
> > > Jan 9th but if you still need it then let me know.
> >
> > Hi Larry, nice offer. But I personally would not have time hacking on
> > Alpha. Others may find it usefull though.
> >
>
> Well, I have an Alpha System here myself and am also "hacking" on
> it. But one has also to ask oneself if there is any demand (apart
> from my personal demand) for a maintained Linux/Alpha >= 2.5...
I'm certainly going to be interested in Linux/Sparc >= 2.5 when I can
get a Sparc machine, (I'm hoping to help work on the 'Splack'
distribution, which is basically an un-official Slackware-like
distribution for Sparcs), with the eventual aim of moving from X86 to
Sparc as my default architechture, but I'm not really interested in
Alpha.
What's the status of the 2.5 Sparc tree?
John.
Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
>
>>Anyway, I just installed BitKeeper and start finding my way into the code...
>
>
> Maybe setting up an own repository (like the parisc, mips, m68k, etc
> people currently do using CVS) would also be a good idea, just to test out
> stuff before pushing it into the main tree and to have a common code base
> to work on.
>
> This way we could apply e.g. the module patch from kernel.org and fix the
> remaining parts.
>
I'm all for it. The important bit would be to get those who really
matter (i.e. Richard Henderson, Ivan K. et al) to cooperate with it.
Otherwise it's just a waste of time, since in doubt their patches have a
far better chance being incorporated into the main tree than ours ...
> just my 0,02 EURO
> --jochen
Same here.
Cheers,
Hannes
Em Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:27:42PM +0000, John Bradford escreveu:
> > > > I have a spare Alpha box (in theory I made need it some day if we ever
> > > > decide to support Tru64 but that seems like a small market). I don't
> > > > know how useful it is but I could put it up outside our firewall if
> > > > that helped. I'd have to install Linux on it and I'm booked up until
> > > > Jan 9th but if you still need it then let me know.
> > >
> > > Hi Larry, nice offer. But I personally would not have time hacking on
> > > Alpha. Others may find it usefull though.
> > >
> >
> > Well, I have an Alpha System here myself and am also "hacking" on
> > it. But one has also to ask oneself if there is any demand (apart
> > from my personal demand) for a maintained Linux/Alpha >= 2.5...
> I'm certainly going to be interested in Linux/Sparc >= 2.5 when I can get a
> Sparc machine, (I'm hoping to help work on the 'Splack' distribution, which
> is basically an un-official Slackware-like distribution for Sparcs), with the
I'm doing the same for Conectiva Linux, the package recompilation is almost
done :-) But for now I'm using 2.4.20, with some oopses (similar to some
already reported on the [email protected] mailing list that I already
reported to Uzi). 2.5-bk compiles and boots, but I couldn't access the machine
as serial console is not working and I only have a SS10 headless machine, I
plan to look into some of these issues when (if) I find time.
> eventual aim of moving from X86 to Sparc as my default architechture, but I'm
> not really interested in Alpha.
> What's the status of the 2.5 Sparc tree?
Zaitcev has sent an status some time ago:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-sparc&m=103895559102210&w=2
- Arnaldo
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 07:20:47PM +0100, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
> > Anyway, I just installed BitKeeper and start finding my way into the code...
>
> Maybe setting up an own repository (like the parisc, mips, m68k, etc
> people currently do using CVS) would also be a good idea, just to test out
> stuff before pushing it into the main tree and to have a common code base
> to work on.
Richard (rth) maintains some BK trees but they may be private. If so,
maybe we can coax him into maintaining a copy on linuxalpha.bkbits.net
or on kernel.bkbits.net.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm