Is it possible compile an a new x86_64 kernel on an i686 CentOS system? When I tried to do so with this command
rpmbuild -ba --target x86_64 kernel-2.6.spec
I got the following error:
make[1]: *** [nonint_oldconfig] Error 51 make: *** [nonint_oldconfig] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.40130 (%build)
RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.40130 (%build)
Isn't gcc able to do cross compile?
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:06 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
Is it possible compile an a new x86_64 kernel on an i686 CentOS system?
no, you need to do it from an x86_64 machine.
You can make i[3,4,5,6]86 RPMS on an x86_64 machine ... can't do x86_64 RPMS from a i686 machine.
When I tried to do so with this command
rpmbuild -ba --target x86_64 kernel-2.6.spec
I got the following error:
make[1]: *** [nonint_oldconfig] Error 51 make: *** [nonint_oldconfig] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.40130 (%build)
RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.40130 (%build)
Isn't gcc able to do cross compile? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 13/01/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:06 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
Is it possible compile an a new x86_64 kernel on an i686 CentOS system?
no, you need to do it from an x86_64 machine.
Not strictly true, it is possible to build a x86_64 kernel on an i686 using a cross compiler - I rebuilt my first x86_64 kernel in this way ...
If you _really_ want to do it, googling for 'cross compiler x86_64' will produce many pointers, but I wouldn't recommend going there ...
James Pearson
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 22:53 +0000, James Pearson wrote:
On 13/01/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:06 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
Is it possible compile an a new x86_64 kernel on an i686 CentOS system?
no, you need to do it from an x86_64 machine.
Not strictly true, it is possible to build a x86_64 kernel on an i686 using a cross compiler - I rebuilt my first x86_64 kernel in this way ...
If you _really_ want to do it, googling for 'cross compiler x86_64' will produce many pointers, but I wouldn't recommend going there ...
While it is possible (though fairly complicated) to do a cross compiler tool chain and rebuild the kernel ... it is even more difficult (once you have worked out all the gcc issues) to get all the RPM variables set up to properly make RPMS form another arch. While it would not be impossible, it would be VERY HARD to compile x86_64 RPMS reliably on an x86 machine, especially SRPMS that use automake, autoconf, libtool, etc. There is a program called setarch that can help ... but I have still had issues in this regard.
The method that was trying to be used also involved rebuilding the SRPM ... therefore my original answer.
In order to reliably rebuild RPMS for another arch, you really need to have some kind of emulator running that will make the installed programs think that they are really compiling on the arch you want ... otherwise all the configure files will compile against the wrong shared libraries when they do configuration checks.
I now have 64-bit build system. Bulding the RPM with this command is failing, though:
rpmbuild -ba --target=x86_64 kernel-2.6.spec
drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3535: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3555: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3606: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3620: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3632: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c: In function `ipw_handle_data_packet': drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:4827: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:4827: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_glue.c:1875: warning: `MODULE_PARM_' is deprecated (declared at include/linux/module.h:552) + exit 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.29618 (%build)
RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.29618 (%build)
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 17:22 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
I now have 64-bit build system. Bulding the RPM with this command is failing, though:
rpmbuild -ba --target=x86_64 kernel-2.6.spec
drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3535: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3555: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3606: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3620: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3632: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c: In function `ipw_handle_data_packet': drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:4827: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:4827: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_glue.c:1875: warning: `MODULE_PARM_' is deprecated (declared at include/linux/module.h:552)
- exit 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.29618 (%build)
RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.29618 (%build) _______________________________________________
If this is in not on an x86_64 machine ... use setarch like this:
setarch x86_64 rpmbuild -ba --target=x86_64 kernel-2.6.spec
On 1/19/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 17:22 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
I now have 64-bit build system. Bulding the RPM with this command is failing, though:
rpmbuild -ba --target=x86_64 kernel-2.6.spec
drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3535: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3555: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3606: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3620: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3632: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c: In function `ipw_handle_data_packet': drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:4827: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:4827: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_glue.c:1875: warning: `MODULE_PARM_' is deprecated (declared at include/linux/module.h:552)
- exit 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.29618 (%build)
RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.29618 (%build) _______________________________________________
If this is in not on an x86_64 machine ... use setarch like this:
setarch x86_64 rpmbuild -ba --target=x86_64 kernel-2.6.spec
It's a Xeon system with the Nocona chipset. It's running the 64-bit kernel from the CentOS 4.2 x86_64 release.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBDz48tTKkMgmrBY7MRAiuOAJ9g0c6snlFdF57kGZKCfD8nGCEBUwCfdaWm DmbDkoD8TtByFkGYuk6Shwg= =pL8E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 08:53 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
On 1/19/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 17:22 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
I now have 64-bit build system. Bulding the RPM with this command is failing, though:
rpmbuild -ba --target=x86_64 kernel-2.6.spec
drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3535: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3555: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3606: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3620: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3632: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c: In function `ipw_handle_data_packet': drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:4827: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:4827: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_glue.c:1875: warning: `MODULE_PARM_' is deprecated (declared at include/linux/module.h:552)
- exit 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.29618 (%build)
RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.29618 (%build) _______________________________________________
If this is in not on an x86_64 machine ... use setarch like this:
setarch x86_64 rpmbuild -ba --target=x86_64 kernel-2.6.spec
It's a Xeon system with the Nocona chipset. It's running the 64-bit kernel from the CentOS 4.2 x86_64 release.
Does it have any i[3,4,5,6]86 rpms installed on it other than glibc.i686 and glibc-devel.i386 ... if so, you will need to either uninstall those other RPMS ...OR... create a pure x86_64 chroot with only those i [3,4,5,6]86 rpms installed.
On 1/19/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 08:53 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
On 1/19/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 17:22 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
I now have 64-bit build system. Bulding the RPM with this command is failing, though:
rpmbuild -ba --target=x86_64 kernel-2.6.spec
drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3535: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3555: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3606: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3620: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:3632: warning: int format, different type arg (arg 3) drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c: In function `ipw_handle_data_packet': drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:4827: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200/ipw2200.c:4827: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_glue.c:1875: warning: `MODULE_PARM_' is deprecated (declared at include/linux/module.h:552)
- exit 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.29618 (%build)
RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.29618 (%build) _______________________________________________
If this is in not on an x86_64 machine ... use setarch like this:
setarch x86_64 rpmbuild -ba --target=x86_64 kernel-2.6.spec
It's a Xeon system with the Nocona chipset. It's running the 64-bit kernel from the CentOS 4.2 x86_64 release.
Does it have any i[3,4,5,6]86 rpms installed on it other than glibc.i686 and glibc-devel.i386 ... if so, you will need to either uninstall those other RPMS ...OR... create a pure x86_64 chroot with only those i [3,4,5,6]86 rpms installed.
This is all I have installed:
glibc-common-2.3.4-2.13 glibc-kernheaders-2.4-9.1.98.EL glibc-devel-2.3.4-2.13 glibc-2.3.4-2.13 glibc-2.3.4-2.13 glibc-headers-2.3.4-2.13
Anyway, I wiped out all traces of the files installed from the kernel srpm and started from scratch. It ran through completely without any problem, even when not using setarch.
I'm trying to add the xfs and reiserfs module (the centosplus kernel package has an unsupported which I don't want to use). I realized that it was you who packaged this unsupported kernel. How did you go about adding the module? The procedure I used to add these in CentOS 4.1 i686 doesn't seem to work.
Thanks for all the responses I've been getting. One thing I like most about this mailing list is the quick response, much quicker than others I've been on.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBDz9ZmTKkMgmrBY7MRAgWvAKCQvK2gzLWH05UK5xdEjjBMHguXJACgpkcr cu2T/haKERhDz5pW/0e6AP8= =cYG3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Does it have any i[3,4,5,6]86 rpms installed on it other than glibc.i686 and glibc-devel.i386 ... if so, you will need to either uninstall those other RPMS ...OR... create a pure x86_64 chroot with only those i [3,4,5,6]86 rpms installed.
This is all I have installed:
glibc-common-2.3.4-2.13 glibc-kernheaders-2.4-9.1.98.EL glibc-devel-2.3.4-2.13 glibc-2.3.4-2.13 glibc-2.3.4-2.13 glibc-headers-2.3.4-2.13
You should probably include the architecture... add "%_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}" to ~/.rpmmacros
I'm trying to add the xfs and reiserfs module (the centosplus kernel package has an unsupported which I don't want to use). I realized that it was you who packaged this unsupported kernel. How did you go about adding the module? The procedure I used to add these in CentOS 4.1 i686 doesn't seem to work.
Why not use the unsupported kernel from centosplus? It obviously has what you need and it's probably done better than you can do it yourself (and decidedly less work there...). Indeed you can even just download and install just the reiserfs.ko from it... [that's even more unsupported but it does work] :)
Cheers, MaZe.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:42:39AM -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
I'm trying to add the xfs and reiserfs module (the centosplus kernel package has an unsupported which I don't want to use).
Guess what ? Your custom kernel is also unsupported.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On 1/19/06, Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:42:39AM -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
I'm trying to add the xfs and reiserfs module (the centosplus kernel package has an unsupported which I don't want to use).
Guess what ? Your custom kernel is also unsupported.
But my changes will be minimal and can be easily documented/explained to management. If it shows up with unsupported in the name, a lot of people will be alarmed. I wish we could call it something else -- perhaps "plus" or "extended" instead of "unsupported".
Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDz/nHpdyWzQ5b5ckRAgn7AJ9r7YVgdwKoTyrgCadQxgxP6TS1LgCfUfcy x37Wg0cs8ZPU6jz8vPkx6zQ= =UEWt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Guess what ? Your custom kernel is also unsupported.
But my changes will be minimal and can be easily documented/explained to management. If it shows up with unsupported in the name, a lot of people will be alarmed. I wish we could call it something else -- perhaps "plus" or "extended" instead of "unsupported".
Get the src.rpm, install it, edit the spec, rebuild.
Wrinse and repeat, MaZe.
On 1/19/06, Maciej Żenczykowski maze@cela.pl wrote:
Guess what ? Your custom kernel is also unsupported.
But my changes will be minimal and can be easily documented/explained to management. If it shows up with unsupported in the name, a lot of people will be alarmed. I wish we could call it something else -- perhaps "plus" or "extended" instead of "unsupported".
Get the src.rpm, install it, edit the spec, rebuild.
I am using the srpm... I was able to do this in CentOS 4.1, but 4.2 x86_64 has been problematic so far.
Wrinse and repeat, MaZe. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Get the src.rpm, install it, edit the spec, rebuild.
I am using the srpm... I was able to do this in CentOS 4.1, but 4.2 x86_64 has been problematic so far.
I was speeking of the centosplus src.rpm - to be build on a system with no i[3456]86 packages except for those 2 glibc packages.
MaZe.
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 13:10 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
On 1/19/06, Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:42:39AM -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
I'm trying to add the xfs and reiserfs module (the centosplus kernel package has an unsupported which I don't want to use).
Guess what ? Your custom kernel is also unsupported.
But my changes will be minimal and can be easily documented/explained to management. If it shows up with unsupported in the name, a lot of people will be alarmed. I wish we could call it something else -- perhaps "plus" or "extended" instead of "unsupported".
I didn't really pick the name ... that is what it is called in RHEL 3 ... I just carried the concept over into CentOS-4 from CentOS-3.
And it is called unsupported precisely for the reason that you don't like ... because it should not be considered stable or supported :)
But my changes will be minimal and can be easily documented/explained to management. If it shows up with unsupported in the name, a lot of people will be alarmed. I wish we could call it something else -- perhaps "plus" or "extended" instead of "unsupported".
What level of support do they think they're getting with CentOS? Technically it's ALL unsupported. If they want support, have them buy a rhel license (so that rhel support can laugh at you when you ask for xfs/reiserfs support).
-- Jim Perrin System Architect - UIT Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:10:45PM -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
On 1/19/06, Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:42:39AM -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
I'm trying to add the xfs and reiserfs module (the centosplus kernel package has an unsupported which I don't want to use).
Guess what ? Your custom kernel is also unsupported.
But my changes will be minimal and can be easily documented/explained to management. If it shows up with unsupported in the name, a lot of people will be alarmed. I wish we could call it something else -- perhaps "plus" or "extended" instead of "unsupported".
From the "explain to management" point of view, it actually makes sense. - -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Thursday 19 January 2006 16:10, Fong Vang wrote:
But my changes will be minimal and can be easily documented/explained to management. If it shows up with unsupported in the name, a lot of people will be alarmed. I wish we could call it something else -- perhaps "plus" or "extended" instead of "unsupported".
"'regression testing'? What's that? If it compiles, it is good, if it boots up it is perfect." (1998)
-- Linus Torvalds http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9804.1/0149.html
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 20:24 -0500, ryan wrote:
"'regression testing'? What's that? If it compiles, it is good, if it boots up it is perfect." (1998)
-- Linus Torvalds http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9804.1/0149.html
I agree fully with the above statement (hey, he is the man :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok ... someone, somewhere :) (can't find it now) ... wanted apple talk with x86_64 on the unsupported kernel. I have that working now on the 2.6.9-22.0.2.106.unsupported kernel for x86_64.
Also, this bug is fixed in the i[5,6]86 versions of 2.6.9-22.0.2.106.unsupported too:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1089
I am putting the finishing touches on now, signing the RPMS, etc.
They should be out soon.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Ok ... someone, somewhere :) (can't find it now)
That was on IRC :)
... wanted apple talk with x86_64 on the unsupported kernel. I have that working now on the 2.6.9-22.0.2.106.unsupported kernel for x86_64.
He's not on there at the moment, but I think he'll be glad to know that :)
Ralph
I'm trying to add the xfs and reiserfs module (the centosplus kernel package has an unsupported which I don't want to use). I realized that it was you who packaged this unsupported kernel. How did you go about adding the module? The procedure I used to add these in CentOS 4.1 i686 doesn't seem to work.
Keep in mind that the xfs modules in the default kernel you're rebuilding.... well, they suck. This is why there's a custom xfs kernel module in the dev.centos.org repository. The stock XFS module will foul things up nicely for you, as there are all sorts of flaws in it as well as things unsupported that are generally required for rhel kernels (4k stacks anyone?). I would REALLY have to advise that you use the unsupported kernel that is provided. The one you're building seems to be causing you a fair amount of grief, and you haven't even got it installed yet.
-- Jim Perrin System Architect - UIT Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center
On 1/19/06, Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to add the xfs and reiserfs module (the centosplus kernel package has an unsupported which I don't want to use). I realized that it was you who packaged this unsupported kernel. How did you go about adding the module? The procedure I used to add these in CentOS 4.1 i686 doesn't seem to work.
Keep in mind that the xfs modules in the default kernel you're rebuilding.... well, they suck. This is why there's a custom xfs kernel module in the dev.centos.org repository. The stock XFS module will foul things up nicely for you, as there are all sorts of flaws in it as well as things unsupported that are generally required for rhel kernels (4k stacks anyone?). I would REALLY have to advise that you use the unsupported kernel that is provided. The one you're building seems to be causing you a fair amount of grief, and you haven't even got it installed yet.
I didn't know there's a dev.centos.org. There's quite a bit of stuff there. What exactly are these?
kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-11.EL-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-11.ELsmp-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.0.1.EL-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.0.1.ELsmp-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.EL-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.ELsmp-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm
Do these contain just the xfs module?
I've forgotten about the src rpm for the unsupported kernel. I'll try building with that instead after changing the name.
-- Jim Perrin System Architect - UIT Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 13:36 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
On 1/19/06, Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to add the xfs and reiserfs module (the centosplus kernel package has an unsupported which I don't want to use). I realized that it was you who packaged this unsupported kernel. How did you go about adding the module? The procedure I used to add these in CentOS 4.1 i686 doesn't seem to work.
Keep in mind that the xfs modules in the default kernel you're rebuilding.... well, they suck. This is why there's a custom xfs kernel module in the dev.centos.org repository. The stock XFS module will foul things up nicely for you, as there are all sorts of flaws in it as well as things unsupported that are generally required for rhel kernels (4k stacks anyone?). I would REALLY have to advise that you use the unsupported kernel that is provided. The one you're building seems to be causing you a fair amount of grief, and you haven't even got it installed yet.
I didn't know there's a dev.centos.org. There's quite a bit of stuff there. What exactly are these?
kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-11.EL-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-11.ELsmp-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.0.1.EL-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.0.1.ELsmp-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.EL-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.ELsmp-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm
Do these contain just the xfs module?
Yes ... they just contain the things required to run xfs for the kernel. The code is better than the 2.6.9 kernel stuff and this is straight from SGI.
I've forgotten about the src rpm for the unsupported kernel. I'll try building with that instead after changing the name.
On 1/19/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 13:36 -0800, Fong Vang wrote:
On 1/19/06, Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to add the xfs and reiserfs module (the centosplus kernel package has an unsupported which I don't want to use). I realized that it was you who packaged this unsupported kernel. How did you go about adding the module? The procedure I used to add these in CentOS 4.1 i686 doesn't seem to work.
Keep in mind that the xfs modules in the default kernel you're rebuilding.... well, they suck. This is why there's a custom xfs kernel module in the dev.centos.org repository. The stock XFS module will foul things up nicely for you, as there are all sorts of flaws in it as well as things unsupported that are generally required for rhel kernels (4k stacks anyone?). I would REALLY have to advise that you use the unsupported kernel that is provided. The one you're building seems to be causing you a fair amount of grief, and you haven't even got it installed yet.
I didn't know there's a dev.centos.org. There's quite a bit of stuff there. What exactly are these?
kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-11.EL-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-11.ELsmp-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.0.1.EL-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.0.1.ELsmp-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.EL-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-22.ELsmp-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm
Do these contain just the xfs module?
Yes ... they just contain the things required to run xfs for the kernel. The code is better than the 2.6.9 kernel stuff and this is straight from SGI.
This is what I'll used then. Excellent!
I've forgotten about the src rpm for the unsupported kernel. I'll try building with that instead after changing the name.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBD0AycTKkMgmrBY7MRAqXMAJ0ba7POTS2uFhu2R+JYmMJnzR/nHwCcC3VP 2N3P1tH/Y++owfoxiQykBVA= =siSB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Fong Vang -
James Pearson -
Jim Perrin -
Johnny Hughes -
Maciej Żenczykowski -
Ralph Angenendt -
Rodrigo Barbosa -
ryan