Andy, Actually I'm not trying to build a whole new kernel. I'm just trying to apply the patched module into my actual kernel. Does this patch really requires a kernel rebuild, or you mean building a new one will save me from the trouble of applying the module into the running kernel? Luis Alen www.izap.com.br Ligue com tarifa local de todo o Brasil 4020.3000 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com>wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Luis Fernando Alen <luis.alen at izap.com.br > > wrote: > >> Thank you, Andy. >> >> I tried to apply the patch you guys mentioned by compiling the module >> following instructions at >> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/BuildingKernelModules#head-d2e4c05886f94c701e4ae74387d41d8c40c25d01, >> but it didn't work. >> >> I've been struggling with it for the last 8 hours and no luck so far. >> >> I really don't know what's wrong. I'm not a linux kernel developer and >> I'm most likely failing because of something stupid. >> >> I know this must not the right place to ask for help on such matters, but >> if you guys could shed some light here, I'd really appreciate that. >> >> Well, if you're up to it, here's the situation: >> >> Looks like the module compilation worked (no errors or warnings occurred >> when I followed the instructions at the centos wiki), but I'm unable to >> load the new module to my running kernel. >> > > If you're building a new kernel, you should really give it a new name and > fully install it as a distinct kernel. The safest way to do this is to work > from the SRPM, put the patch in *there* and update the "Release:" > number in the kenrel.spec file This will avoid precisely the issues you > described. > > Do you need a walkt hrough on rebuilding a package from SRPM's? > > >> I even copied the compiled and patched module to >> /lib/modules/2.6.32-279.19.1.el6.x86_64/kernel/drivers/block/ (overwrote >> the original) and /lib/modules/2.6.32-279.19.1.el6.x86_64/extra and >> rebooted the instance... >> >> Also, dmesg does not complain about a thing... >> >> *# modinfo >> /lib/modules/2.6.32-279.19.1.el6.x86_64/kernel/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.ko >> * >> *filename: >> /lib/modules/2.6.32-279.19.1.el6.x86_64/kernel/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.ko >> * >> *alias: xenblk* >> *alias: xen:vbd* >> *alias: block-major-202-** >> *license: GPL* >> *description: Xen virtual block device frontend* >> *srcversion: B00B4183E470515A96DA320* >> *depends: * >> *vermagic: 2.6.32-279.19.1.el6.x86_64 SMP mod_unload modversions * >> *parm: sda_is_xvda:sdX in guest config translates to xvdX, not >> xvd(X+4) (bool)* >> * >> * >> *# uname -r* >> *2.6.32-279.19.1.el6.x86_64* >> >> I also tried to remove the module and insert the patched one with insmod, >> but modprobe and rmmod are unable to unload it. They say it's in use. >> >> *# lsmod |grep blkfront* >> *xen_blkfront 15495 1 * >> >> I don't know what this "1" stands for, but if I were to guess, I'd say >> it's something unremovable... >> >> Please let me know if you need any other information. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> Luis Alen >> www.izap.com.br >> Ligue com tarifa local de todo o Brasil 4020.3000 >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Andy Grimm <agrimm at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729586 >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Luis Fernando Alen < >>> luis.alen at izap.com.br> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, list. >>>> >>>> Yesterday I was pleased to see that Centos has released official images >>>> at the aws marketplace. Nice job. >>>> >>>> Today I started playing with the Centos 6.3 image ( >>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B00A6L6F9I, on which I plan to >>>> deploy a gluster cluster in production soon) and noticed a weird thing. >>>> >>>> EBS Volumes attached to sd<X> are translated to xvd<Y> at the OS level. >>>> However, after a few research and IRC chat, I figured out that it's not >>>> weird, it's actually a normal and expected behavior (thanks for your help, >>>> z00dax). >>>> >>>> sdX is actually mapped to xvdX+4. There is a consistent offset of 4. >>>> Suppose you attach an ebs volume to /dev/sdf. It'll be translated to xvdj >>>> at the OS level. sdg to xvdk, sdh to xvdl and so on. >>>> >>>> Allright. After having figured the mystery out, it became easy to work >>>> on automations that deal with ebs volumes and file systems, such as volumes >>>> created, attached and mounted on the fly, snapshots that freeze file >>>> systems and so on... >>>> >>>> However, I really do think to myself: Wouldn't it be cleaner if the >>>> image use simple translation (sdX to xvdX)? If I'm not wrong, Rightscale >>>> uses this on their Centos images and it's much simpler. There's no extra >>>> work needed to deal with that 4 offset when you want to automate things. >>>> >>>> Is there a reasonable reason for the 4 offset which makes it >>>> unchangeable? >>>> >>>> It's just a thought. I think it's worth considering it.. >>>> >>>> Luis Alen >>>> www.izap.com.br >>>> Ligue com tarifa local de todo o Brasil 4020.3000 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CentOS-virt mailing list >>>> CentOS-virt at centos.org >>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CentOS-virt mailing list >>> CentOS-virt at centos.org >>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS-virt mailing list >> CentOS-virt at centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-virt mailing list > CentOS-virt at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20130116/c17cbb10/attachment-0006.html>