[CentOS] Missing file in current kernel-devel package

Thu Oct 5 16:54:34 UTC 2017
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 10/05/2017 10:17 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
> Albert McCann wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CentOS [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of m.roth at 5-
>>> cent.us
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 10:58 AM
>>> To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Missing file in current kernel-devel package
>>> Fred Smith wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:56:57AM -0400, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>>>>> Ok, folks,
>>>>>    I've identified what my problem is, trying to install the NVidia
>>>>> proprietary drivers: in kernel-devel-3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.x86_64,
>>> there
>>>>> is a file
>>>>> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.x86_64/include/linux/fence.h
>>>>>    It does not exist in the kernel-devel-3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.x86_64
>>>>> package. Is this something that got missed, or did HR drop it,
>>> or....?
>>>> I'm running that kernel with Nvidia 384.90, but I get the nvidia
>>>> driver from elrepo. where do you get yours?
>>> Proprietary NVidia. Still, why is fence.h suddenly not there?
>> While I'm running the Plus kernel, it has the same files. What I'm seeing
>> here is that fence.h has been renamed in the 693 kernel to dma-fence.h:
>> # locate fence.h
>> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/linux/fence.h
>> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/linux/seqno-fence.h
>> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/trace/events/fenhttps://lwn.net/Articles/685049/ce.h
>> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/linux/dma-fence.h
>> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/linux/seqno-fence.h
>> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/trace/events/dma_fence.h
>> Looks like upstream renamed it for some reason.
> Not good - I did a diff of fence.h and dma_fence.h, it *appears* to be the
> same structures, but all with different names. That's not going to
> compile.
> Sorry, but I really don't believe it is good, much less best practice to
> do something like removing a kernel include file within one release. If
> they'd made it go a away for 7.0, I would deal, but to suddenly drop it,
> bad.

Tell it to Linus, not us:


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20171005/1f7ca5e9/attachment-0005.sig>