Re: building kernel modules for linux differnet version
The strange part is that your 2.6.39 dir returns 3.0.36 kernel version ..!? > /lib/modules/2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64/build/Makefile:VERSION = 3 > /lib/modules/2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64/build/Makefile:PATCHLEVEL = 0 > /lib/modules/2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64/build/Makefile:SUBLEVEL = 36 > /lib/modules/2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64/build/Makefile:EXTRAVERSION -- « On ne résout pas un problème avec les modes de pensée qui l’ont engendré. » « You cannot solve current problems with current thinking. Current problems are the result of current thinking » ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
Re: building kernel modules for linux differnet version
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Yann Droneaud wrote: > Le mardi 11 mars 2014 à 22:42 +0530, Saket Sinha a écrit : >> Please find my response inline >> >> >> I have a scenario where I need to build a driver for >> >> different kernel versions. >> >> I have kernel-headers of different version in /lib/modules/ >> >> 2.6.32- >> >> 2.6.39- >> >> >> >> and currently I am booted into 2.6.32-(which I find out by uname -r) >> >> >> > >> > You don't need to boot on a specific kernel version to build external >> > module for it. >> > >> >> I am aware of that. I just need the kernel header of that specific >> version instead. >> What I meant was that since I was using the expression "uname -r" in >> my makefile below- >> "make -C /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build M=$(PWD) modules" >> so I specified that. >> >> >> Now in my driver makefile, I generate .ko of driver >> >> make -C /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build M=$(PWD) modules >> >> >> >> but I notice that the driver .ko gets generated for 2.6.39- though >> >> I am booted into 2.6.32-. Can anyone help me figure out why this >> >> is happening? >> >> >> > >> > Could you check that /lib/modules/2.6.32-/build is not a symbolic >> > link to linux 2.6.39- sources ? >> >> I am pasting the output for you to check >> >> [root@Noi1-502156 ~]# cd /lib/modules >> [root@Noi1-502156 modules]# ls >> 2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64 2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64 >> 2.6.32-358.6.2.el6.x86_64 2.6.39-400.24.1.el6uek.x86_64 >> [root@Noi1-502156 modules]# ll >> total 16 >> drwxr-xr-x. 8 root root 4096 Feb 28 14:41 2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64 >> drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4096 Jul 15 2013 2.6.32-358.6.2.el6.x86_64 >> drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 4096 Aug 12 2013 2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64 >> drwxr-xr-x. 4 root root 4096 Jul 10 2013 2.6.39-400.24.1.el6uek.x86_64 >> [root@Noi1-502156 modules]# >> > > Now try "ls -dFl /lib/modules/2.6.3*/build" [root@Noi1-502156 ~]# ls -dFl /lib/modules/2.6.3*/build lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 50 Feb 17 2012 /lib/modules/2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64/build -> ../../../usr/src/kernels/2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64/ lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 50 Jun 11 2013 /lib/modules/2.6.32-358.6.2.el6.x86_64/build -> ../../../usr/src/kernels/2.6.32-358.6.2.el6.x86_64 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 54 Jul 10 2013 /lib/modules/2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64/build -> ../../../usr/src/kernels/2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64/ > > And > > grep '^\(\(VERSION\)\|\(PATCHLEVEL\)\|\(SUBLEVEL\)\|\(EXTRAVERSION\)\| > \(MAKEARGS\)\)' /lib/modules/*/build/Makefile > [root@Noi1-502156 ~]# grep '^\(\(VERSION\)\|\(PATCHLEVEL\)\|\(SUBLEVEL\)\|\(EXTRAVERSION\)\|\(MAKEARGS\)\)' /lib/modules/*/build/Makefile /lib/modules/2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64/build/Makefile:VERSION = 2 /lib/modules/2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64/build/Makefile:PATCHLEVEL = 6 /lib/modules/2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64/build/Makefile:SUBLEVEL = 32 /lib/modules/2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64/build/Makefile:EXTRAVERSION = -220.4.2.el6.x86_64 /lib/modules/2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64/build/Makefile:VERSION = 3 /lib/modules/2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64/build/Makefile:PATCHLEVEL = 0 /lib/modules/2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64/build/Makefile:SUBLEVEL = 36 /lib/modules/2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64/build/Makefile:EXTRAVERSION = -300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64 > Check that matches the expected version. As already mentioned, driver .ko gets generated for 2.6.39-. Kindly let me know what you could make out of above outputs and why exactly I am getting a 2.6.39- .ko file when I am specifying a 2.6.32- kernel header. Regards, Saket Sinha ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
Re: building kernel modules for linux differnet version
Le mardi 11 mars 2014 à 22:42 +0530, Saket Sinha a écrit : > Please find my response inline > > >> I have a scenario where I need to build a driver for > >> different kernel versions. > >> I have kernel-headers of different version in /lib/modules/ > >> 2.6.32- > >> 2.6.39- > >> > >> and currently I am booted into 2.6.32-(which I find out by uname -r) > >> > > > > You don't need to boot on a specific kernel version to build external > > module for it. > > > > I am aware of that. I just need the kernel header of that specific > version instead. > What I meant was that since I was using the expression "uname -r" in > my makefile below- > "make -C /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build M=$(PWD) modules" > so I specified that. > > >> Now in my driver makefile, I generate .ko of driver > >> make -C /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build M=$(PWD) modules > >> > >> but I notice that the driver .ko gets generated for 2.6.39- though > >> I am booted into 2.6.32-. Can anyone help me figure out why this > >> is happening? > >> > > > > Could you check that /lib/modules/2.6.32-/build is not a symbolic > > link to linux 2.6.39- sources ? > > I am pasting the output for you to check > > [root@Noi1-502156 ~]# cd /lib/modules > [root@Noi1-502156 modules]# ls > 2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64 2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64 > 2.6.32-358.6.2.el6.x86_64 2.6.39-400.24.1.el6uek.x86_64 > [root@Noi1-502156 modules]# ll > total 16 > drwxr-xr-x. 8 root root 4096 Feb 28 14:41 2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64 > drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4096 Jul 15 2013 2.6.32-358.6.2.el6.x86_64 > drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 4096 Aug 12 2013 2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64 > drwxr-xr-x. 4 root root 4096 Jul 10 2013 2.6.39-400.24.1.el6uek.x86_64 > [root@Noi1-502156 modules]# > Now try "ls -dFl /lib/modules/2.6.3*/build" And grep '^\(\(VERSION\)\|\(PATCHLEVEL\)\|\(SUBLEVEL\)\|\(EXTRAVERSION\)\| \(MAKEARGS\)\)' /lib/modules/*/build/Makefile Check that matches the expected version. -- Yann Droneaud OPTEYA ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
Re: building kernel modules for linux differnet version
Please find my response inline >> I have a scenario where I need to build a driver for >> different kernel versions. >> I have kernel-headers of different version in /lib/modules/ >> 2.6.32- >> 2.6.39- >> >> and currently I am booted into 2.6.32-(which I find out by uname -r) >> > > You don't need to boot on a specific kernel version to build external > module for it. > I am aware of that. I just need the kernel header of that specific version instead. What I meant was that since I was using the expression "uname -r" in my makefile below- "make -C /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build M=$(PWD) modules" so I specified that. >> Now in my driver makefile, I generate .ko of driver >> make -C /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build M=$(PWD) modules >> >> but I notice that the driver .ko gets generated for 2.6.39- though >> I am booted into 2.6.32-. Can anyone help me figure out why this >> is happening? >> > > Could you check that /lib/modules/2.6.32-/build is not a symbolic > link to linux 2.6.39- sources ? I am pasting the output for you to check [root@Noi1-502156 ~]# cd /lib/modules [root@Noi1-502156 modules]# ls 2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64 2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64 2.6.32-358.6.2.el6.x86_64 2.6.39-400.24.1.el6uek.x86_64 [root@Noi1-502156 modules]# ll total 16 drwxr-xr-x. 8 root root 4096 Feb 28 14:41 2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4096 Jul 15 2013 2.6.32-358.6.2.el6.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 4096 Aug 12 2013 2.6.39-300.17.1.el6uek.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 4 root root 4096 Jul 10 2013 2.6.39-400.24.1.el6uek.x86_64 [root@Noi1-502156 modules]# Regards, Saket Sinha ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
Re: building kernel modules for linux differnet version
Hi, Le mardi 11 mars 2014 à 21:16 +0530, Saket Sinha a écrit : > > I have a scenario where I need to build a driver for > different kernel versions. > I have kernel-headers of different version in /lib/modules/ > 2.6.32- > 2.6.39- > > and currently I am booted into 2.6.32-(which I find out by uname -r) > You don't need to boot on a specific kernel version to build external module for it. > Now in my driver makefile, I generate .ko of driver > make -C /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build M=$(PWD) modules > > but I notice that the driver .ko gets generated for 2.6.39- though > I am booted into 2.6.32-. Can anyone help me figure out why this > is happening? > Could you check that /lib/modules/2.6.32-/build is not a symbolic link to linux 2.6.39- sources ? Regards. -- Yann Droneaud OPTEYA ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
building kernel modules for linux differnet version
Hi, I have a scenario where I need to build a driver for different kernel versions. I have kernel-headers of different version in /lib/modules/ 2.6.32- 2.6.39- and currently I am booted into 2.6.32-(which I find out by uname -r) Now in my driver makefile, I generate .ko of driver make -C /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build M=$(PWD) modules but I notice that the driver .ko gets generated for 2.6.39- though I am booted into 2.6.32-. Can anyone help me figure out why this is happening? Regards, Saket Sinha ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
