Please try [email protected] (Cc'ed) for such queries,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (un-Cc'ed) is the wrong list for
questions about KDB patches or Red Hat kernels or Centos kernels.
Hugh
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Satish Eerpini wrote:
> i am patching kdb-v4.4-2.6.18-common-1 and kdb-v4.4-2.6.18-i386-1
>
> and following are the rejects i got , ... and nowhere could i make
> sense for the above mentioned errors , ... am i missing on something
> over here ?
>
> include/linux/sysctl.h.rej from kdb-v4.4-2.6.18-common-1 ( i could fix
> this, or so i think , ... by manually adding the macro definitions to
> the header file , .... and i agree i am totally unaware of the
> consequences )
>
> ***************
> *** 150,155 ****
> KERN_IA64_UNALIGNED=72, /* int: ia64 unaligned userland trap enable */
> KERN_COMPAT_LOG=73, /* int: print compat layer messages */
> KERN_MAX_LOCK_DEPTH=74,
> };
>
>
> --- 150,156 ----
> KERN_IA64_UNALIGNED=72, /* int: ia64 unaligned userland trap enable */
> KERN_COMPAT_LOG=73, /* int: print compat layer messages */
> KERN_MAX_LOCK_DEPTH=74,
> + KERN_KDB=75, /* int: kdb on/off */
> };
>
>
> arch/i386/kernel/traps.c.rej from kdb-v4.4-2.6.18-i386-1 :
>
> ***************
> *** 786,791 ****
> printk(" on CPU%d, eip %08lx, registers:\n",
> smp_processor_id(), regs->eip);
> show_registers(regs);
> printk(KERN_EMERG "console shuts up ...\n");
> console_silent();
> spin_unlock(&nmi_print_lock);
> --- 797,805 ----
> printk(" on CPU%d, eip %08lx, registers:\n",
> smp_processor_id(), regs->eip);
> show_registers(regs);
> + #ifdef CONFIG_KDB
> + kdb(KDB_REASON_NMI, 0, regs);
> + #endif /* CONFIG_KDB */
> printk(KERN_EMERG "console shuts up ...\n");
> console_silent();
> spin_unlock(&nmi_print_lock);
>
> arch/i386/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S.rej from kdb-v4.4-2.6.18-i386-1 :
>
> ***************
> *** 134,139 ****
> *(.con_initcall.init)
> }
> __con_initcall_end = .;
> SECURITY_INIT
> . = ALIGN(4);
> __alt_instructions = .;
> --- 134,144 ----
> *(.con_initcall.init)
> }
> __con_initcall_end = .;
> + __kdb_initcall_start = .;
> + .kdb_initcall.init : AT(ADDR(.kdb_initcall.init) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
> + *(.kdb_initcall.init)
> + }
> + __kdb_initcall_end = .;
> SECURITY_INIT
> . = ALIGN(4);
> __alt_instructions = .;
>
>
> , .... i seem to be using the correct kdb patch but the rejects seem
> to be the result of the fact that redhat guys have a lot of custom
> patches which are added to get the redhat/CentOS kernel . Also because
> i could patch kernel 2.6.18.4 without any problems what so ever .
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Satish
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:12 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:30:41 +0530, Satish Eerpini said:
> >> hi everyone , i was trying to patch kdb with CentOS 5.0 kernel
> >> (2.6.18-8)
> >
> > You might want to make sure you're using a 2.6.18-vintage kdb patch, as
> > trying to fit a 2.6.26 kdb onto a 2.6.18 kernel is unlikely to bring joy.
> >
> >> resolve) ,.... but apart from the rejects during the kernel
> >> compilation i got the following error which does not seem to have
> >> anything to do with the rejects ............
> >
> > No, the rejects during the patch are almost certainly related to your
> > compile errors...
> >
> >> the code(in kdb/modules/kdbm_pg.c) which is causing the second error
> >> is something like this :
> >>
> >> iaddr += offsetof(struct inode, u);
> >>
> >> what i am not able to understand is that if 'u' is not a correct
> >> member of the inode , .. then what did they( whoever wrote this piece
> >> code) intend by 'u' ? , .....
> >
> > Your kdb patch probably includes a patch to include/linux/fs.h that adds a
> > member 'u' to a 'struct inode'. If this generated a reject, then the
> > member 'u'
> > won't be in the struct, and your compile dies...
> >
> >> and for the first error , ... i just checked out the code ....
> >> according to the line no shown in the error .....the code is :
> >>
> >> kdb_page_flags(page, Checked);
> >>
> >> and i don't see any function PageChecked ....! so what can the error
> >> actually mean ??
> >
> > kdb_page_flags is probably a macro that does something like:
> >
> > #define kdb_page_flags(a,b) (..... Page##b)
> >
> > The 'implicit declaration' is most likely a missing #include someplace,
> > which again hints at the rejects from a misapplied patch...
---------------------------
Use http://oss.sgi.com/ecartis to modify your settings or to unsubscribe.
