On 4/14/09 3:12 AM, in article bfa89a870904140112s490d223ch440cf009d20e88df at mail.gmail.com, "Akemi Yagi" <amyagi at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Terry Hull <tah at nrg-inc.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 4/13/09 7:01 PM, in article >> bfa89a870904131701i2afd9b41j78b53b0611a9e462 at mail.gmail.com, "Akemi Yagi" >> <amyagi at gmail.com> wrote: > >> The patches I need to make do break kABI. I just have not yet applied them. >> I was trying to get the base kernel to build before I added the complexity >> of patching it. > >>> If the build still fails, please post the last portion of the error >>> log (or e-mail the whole log file to me). >> >> I have attached a compressed log file. The errors seem to be in the build >> of OCFS. > > Thanks for the err log file. From the looks of it, the error is in the > code itself as you noted. So, that should have nothing to do with > kABI. > > I checked my own log for the kernel 128.1.6 building but did not see > anything (warnings and such) relating to ocfs2. You mentioned " have > NOT installed any patches that will break KABI". Have you installed > any patches at all, that is, patches that do not break kABI ? If so, > would any of them touch the ocfs code? > > Akemi It may also be of note that I've done this on two separate machines. I guess I'm a little puzzled by this. It must be true that very few people actually have to turn off kABI, or this would have come up before. I know that I can turn off ocfs in the .config and see if there is anything else that does not build correctly. -- Terry Hull Network Resource Group, Inc.