Re: reiser4 on 2.6.13-rc6-realtime-preempt
Hello David Masover wrote: Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote: Hello reiser4 depends on several core kernel patches. I think you did not apply them. What kind of symptoms would not applying them cause? I assumed that Gimpel did not apply core patches because he had compiling error: fs/built-in.o(.text+0x92999): In function `reiser4_put_super': undefined reference to `rcu_barrier'. However, the problem is that some changes are to be done to get reiser4 to work in new realtime/preempt kernels. I grab patches from -mm, but only the ones with reiser4 in the name. They seem to work with minimal tweaking on my part, and no one said anything when I mentioned this before. They do seem solid... You go right way. You might want to try to apply this patch ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiser4-for-2.6/2.6.12/reiser4-for-2.6.12-realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-29.patch.gz Should I get patches from there, instead of -mm, in the future? Which is more likely to be current for a given *stable* kernel, reiser4-for-2.6 or -mm? reiser4-for-2.6 contains code which did not get enough stability yet.
Re: reiser4 on 2.6.13-rc6-realtime-preempt
Hello gimpel wrote: Hello! I'm trying to compile a recent 2.6.13-rc6 with realtime-preempt-2.6.13- rc4-RT-V0.7.53-02 and want to add reiser4. 2.6.12-rt hardlocked very often here. Which patches did you use? I managed to fix up the DEFINE_SPINLOCK and compat_semaphore wait; changes by taking a look on the changes between reiser4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.12-rt and it first seems to compile fine but ends up with: 8-- CC init/version.o LD init/built-in.o LD .tmp_vmlinux1 fs/built-in.o(.text+0x92999): In function `reiser4_put_super': : undefined reference to `rcu_barrier' reiser4 depends on several core kernel patches. I think you did not apply them. You might want to try to apply this patch ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiser4-for-2.6/2.6.12/reiser4-for-2.6.12-realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-29.patch.gz It contains all necessary patches already. fs/built-in.o(.text+0x929a9): In function `reiser4_put_super': : undefined reference to `rcu_barrier' fs/built-in.o(.text+0x97989): In function `_done_sinfo': : undefined reference to `rcu_barrier' fs/built-in.o(.text+0x97d76): In function `_done_formatted_fake': : undefined reference to `rcu_barrier' fs/built-in.o(.text+0x97d86): In function `_done_formatted_fake': : undefined reference to `rcu_barrier' make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Fehler 1 -8- Maybe some has managed to fix that or knows how to do so and is willing to help me. My C knowledge is still too limited... regards and thanks in advance tom
Re: reiser4 on 2.6.13-rc6-realtime-preempt
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:09:03 +0200, gimpel said: reiser4 again. Maybe the is to wait for stable 2.6.13 before doing tests with realtime-preempt as it gets updated twice a day. And i so much hope the kernel guys decide to merge reiser4. Well, reiser4 can't possibly make it into 2.6.13, as we're at -rc6 already and Linus asked for a quiet down several -rc ago. What happens when the tree opens for 2.6.14 is a different question that I can't answer pgpcKVS80WLMQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reiser4 on 2.6.13-rc6-realtime-preempt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote: Hello reiser4 depends on several core kernel patches. I think you did not apply them. What kind of symptoms would not applying them cause? I grab patches from -mm, but only the ones with reiser4 in the name. They seem to work with minimal tweaking on my part, and no one said anything when I mentioned this before. They do seem solid... You might want to try to apply this patch ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiser4-for-2.6/2.6.12/reiser4-for-2.6.12-realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-29.patch.gz Should I get patches from there, instead of -mm, in the future? Which is more likely to be current for a given *stable* kernel, reiser4-for-2.6 or -mm? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBQvzwlngHNmZLgCUhAQI3/w//bELhjwULVxxfqIdZje3Tp49ws4AZNMSD Sgl6TNRv+2VhyCbj1yM7p64wf3dGG9mxBe1F28CrEHWghCJnBsWBgFtheSOkLQS6 nxpSHHwGv/VeU3fKvKwmkMNRYb2o+Olgob2bsdBeKWyQ/9UKXYEy/TvW4rm1hhx4 LOCJz7G0EKWNz3LdPcFBniA0beV2sTC06Z2T/JQI10RELSC6FtYwCIFC0WMcSMjG lDxCY5bLMqTNt5Rm7vUPjofoq7Ir0JA/vDQAqYW2DRgx1tuh49pOXjDbpxf8XhHP p1D/BnzUYkCCO2O5Boo+A0tSoIQ09CaAvbp4NtWgWFY/aogOSmF8WXe/fRg17dKe 1lt+zUdF3n9dt8OKVJ3XGyekw4N2Cr1wGBTXQ7lm9DzGalvSUl2r9oTk9/E/A2LS gY+IusSHWezcrHVPtJxQg1uEQWJN9xlJiVNYBJmx4HpS+4H/U6tdXpJ+bQnhljoh ZklD6bnXdoU9wUSfxLBYl6yv8/tZV5Bv8qzMZus74lkjfcjGyk6AGVtjamzxHrhg j7w1Lc8B8W35qtnTv1xoPrUV1ulw2TWPkMso2QZyThNzkxcT+UKQj1mWZFiuO8hH Coj92FDf3NRrB/j2sXae9HxHCKFqLRqzXvUnB4O2HJL9r89YJwJvuvASbScdK0Xj OiE3+pf0clg= =PcmR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: reiser4 on 2.6.13-rc6-realtime-preempt
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:55:19 -0500 David Masover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote: Hello reiser4 depends on several core kernel patches. I think you did not apply them. What kind of symptoms would not applying them cause? I grab patches from -mm, but only the ones with reiser4 in the name. They seem to work with minimal tweaking on my part, and no one said anything when I mentioned this before. They do seem solid... I think Vladimir is talking about the patches to the new inode behaviour. I'm quite sure i checked the 2.6.13-rc4-mm patchlist about the move-fs-to-new-behaviour-* patches etc. but maybe i should re-check that. Currently I'm using 2.6.13-rc6-ck1 + reiser4 from 2.6.13-rc5- mm1 and it works very well. So did -rc5 and -rc4. just wanted to give new RTP patches a try. But i don't want to steal the time of any devs here. It's more important to get reiser4 merged to vanilla than spending time for a guy who plays around with -rc kernels and -mm broken-out patches without even the basic knowledge of C code to understand such compile errors. All i know that it maybe needs a 'select foo' somewhere or something. It misses something... But I'll just wait for stable 2.6.13 + RT and hopefully a reiser4 patch to it (or even r4 in vanilla? :)). If someone had known a quick fix I would have been happy to continue testing around with RT etc, but it's not worth to steal the time of the devs here :) sorry for bugging! regards! tom pgp1rOJZ2RnqL.pgp Description: PGP signature
