"Marc Mutz" wrote:
>"Homme R. Bitter" wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> > I was able to get the Software RAID patch raid0145-19990824-2.2.11
>> > working with the 2.2.13 kernel, but couldn't do it with 2.2.14p18.
><interrupted>
>> > Also the RAID patches date back to August. Any updates since then?
>
>no, not that I know.
>
>> Did you try to patch a plain 2.2.13 source and did a patch to 2.2.14pre18
>> after that ?
>> I didn't try with pre18, but pre8 worked for me.
>> Or did you try to patch the 2.2.14pre18 ?
>> Patching a pre in stead of the plain 2.2.13 will probably not work.
><snip>
>
>The sequence of patching is irrelevant, AFAICT.
>If the original poster could give more info, such as the exact error
>message, then we can help him better.
>Please re-direct your replies to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Marc
Actually, I'm having the same problem as the original poster, so I'll
provide some details...
Patching the 2.2.13 kernel to pre-2.2.14-18 compiles properly, yielding
the expected kernel. Then I apply the raid0145-19990824-2.2.11 patch.
A "make dep; make clean" results in no errors, but the "make bzImage"
errors out during compile-time with the following errors:
raid0.c:225: warning: `struct md_dev' declared inside parameter list
raid0.c:225: warning: its scope is only this definition or
declaration,
raid0.c:225: warning: which is probably not what you want.
raid0.c: In function `raid0_map':
raid0.c:227: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
raid0.c:234: warning: implicit declaration of function `FACTOR'
raid0.c:235: warning: implicit declaration of function `FACTOR_SHIFT'
raid0.c:237: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
raid0.c:237: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
raid0.c:239: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
raid0.c:239: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
raid0.c:241: warning: unsigned int format, long unsigned int arg (arg
2)
raid0.c:268: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type
raid0.c:271: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
raid0.c: At top level:
raid0.c:278: warning: `struct md_dev' declared inside parameter list
raid0.c:318: variable `raid0_personality' has initializer but
incomplete type
raid0.c:320: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:321: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:322: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:323: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:324: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:325: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:326: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:327: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:328: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:329: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:330: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:331: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c:333: warning: excess elements in struct initializer after
`raid0_personality'
raid0.c: In function `raid0_init':
raid0.c:340: warning: passing arg 2 of `register_md_personality' from
incompatible pointer type
make[3]: *** [raid0.o] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/usr/src/linux-pre-2.2.14-18raid/drivers/block'
make[2]: *** [first_rule] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/usr/src/linux-pre-2.2.14-18raid/drivers/block'
make[1]: *** [_subdir_block] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-pre-2.2.14-18raid/drivers'
make: *** [_dir_drivers] Error 2
I'm far, far over my head trying to figure out the problem other than
the fact it looks like the two patches aren't compatible. I do agree
that the order of the patches appears to be irrelevent since I've done
them both ways and both error out...
If anyone has a solution for this, I'd love to hear it. I NEED
pre-2.2.14-18 in order to get a couple new drives recognized properly
and I was hoping to also be able to RAID-0 them as well...
Thanks a bunch,
AndyB
