[Bug 655275] Re: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
Hi Mario, I can't seem to reproduce this either, but many things have changed in my environment. In any case, I'll just close this out for now. Thanks. ** Changed in: dkms (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete = Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 Title: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dkms/+bug/655275/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 655275] Re: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
** Changed in: dkms (Ubuntu) Status: New = Incomplete -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 Title: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dkms/+bug/655275/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 655275] Re: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
Alex, Is this still actually necessary? I just made an attempt to reproduce your problem in a 32 bit natty chroot from a 64 bit lucid box using DKMS master as of today with a simple kernel module (nvidiabl) and couldn't reproduce it. supermario@serverman:~$ uname -a Linux serverman 2.6.32-31-server #61-Ubuntu SMP Fri Apr 8 19:44:42 UTC 2011 x86_64 GNU/Linux supermario@serverman:~$ schroot -uroot -c natty-i386 (natty-i386)root@serverman:/home/supermario# dpkg -i dkms_2.2.0.1-0_all.deb Selecting previously deselected package dkms. (Reading database ... 13981 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking dkms (from dkms_2.2.0.1-0_all.deb) ... Setting up dkms (2.2.0.1-0) ... (natty-i386)root@serverman:/home/supermario# cp nvidia_bl-0.69-1/ /usr/src/ -R (natty-i386)root@serverman:/home/supermario# apt-get install linux-image-generic linux-headers-generic Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following extra packages will be installed: dmsetup grub-common grub-gfxpayload-lists grub-pc libdevmapper1.02.1 libfreetype6 libfuse2 linux-firmware linux-headers-2.6.38-8 linux-headers-2.6.38-8-generic linux-image-2.6.38-8-generic os-prober ucf wireless-crda Suggested packages: multiboot-doc grub-emu xorriso desktop-base fuse-utils fdutils linux-doc-2.6.38 linux-source-2.6.38 linux-tools The following NEW packages will be installed: dmsetup grub-common grub-gfxpayload-lists grub-pc libdevmapper1.02.1 libfreetype6 libfuse2 linux-firmware linux-headers-2.6.38-8 linux-headers-2.6.38-8-generic linux-headers-generic linux-image-2.6.38-8-generic linux-image-generic os-prober ucf wireless-crda 0 upgraded, 16 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 68.5 MB of archives. After this operation, 253 MB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main libfreetype6 i386 2.4.4-1ubuntu2 [314 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main wireless-crda i386 1.13 [14.9 kB] Get:3 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main linux-image-2.6.38-8-generic i386 2.6.38-8.42 [35.8 MB] Get:4 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main libdevmapper1.02.1 i386 2:1.02.48-4ubuntu2 [62.2 kB] Get:5 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main dmsetup i386 2:1.02.48-4ubuntu2 [37.9 kB] Get:6 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main ucf all 3.0025+nmu1ubuntu1 [54.3 kB] Get:7 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main libfuse2 i386 2.8.4-1.1ubuntu4 [102 kB] Get:8 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main grub-common i386 1.99~rc1-13ubuntu3 [1973 kB] Get:9 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main grub-pc i386 1.99~rc1-13ubuntu3 [923 kB] Get:10 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main grub-gfxpayload-lists i386 0.2 [2956 B] Get:11 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main linux-firmware all 1.52 [17.5 MB] Get:12 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main linux-headers-2.6.38-8 all 2.6.38-8.42 [10.9 MB] Get:13 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main linux-headers-2.6.38-8-generic i386 2.6.38-8.42 [800 kB] Get:14 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main linux-headers-generic i386 2.6.38.8.22 [2382 B] Get:15 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main linux-image-generic i386 2.6.38.8.22 [2374 B] Get:16 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main os-prober i386 1.44ubuntu1 [17.2 kB] Fetched 68.5 MB in 6s (11.4 MB/s) Preconfiguring packages ... Selecting previously deselected package libfreetype6. (Reading database ... 14031 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking libfreetype6 (from .../libfreetype6_2.4.4-1ubuntu2_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package wireless-crda. Unpacking wireless-crda (from .../wireless-crda_1.13_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package linux-image-2.6.38-8-generic. Unpacking linux-image-2.6.38-8-generic (from .../linux-image-2.6.38-8-generic_2.6.38-8.42_i386.deb) ... Done. Selecting previously deselected package libdevmapper1.02.1. Unpacking libdevmapper1.02.1 (from .../libdevmapper1.02.1_2%3a1.02.48-4ubuntu2_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package dmsetup. Unpacking dmsetup (from .../dmsetup_2%3a1.02.48-4ubuntu2_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package ucf. Unpacking ucf (from .../ucf_3.0025+nmu1ubuntu1_all.deb) ... Moving old data out of the way Selecting previously deselected package libfuse2. Unpacking libfuse2 (from .../libfuse2_2.8.4-1.1ubuntu4_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package grub-common. Unpacking grub-common (from .../grub-common_1.99~rc1-13ubuntu3_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package grub-pc. Unpacking grub-pc (from .../grub-pc_1.99~rc1-13ubuntu3_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package grub-gfxpayload-lists. Unpacking grub-gfxpayload-lists (from
[Bug 655275] Re: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
Mario, This bug has been sitting for a while, and I'd like to learn if you still have any objections to the proposed patch (and if so, why?). Thanks! -- allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 655275] Re: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
I'm not convinced this patch is correct. What if you are building an i686 kernel? You shouldn't be applying i386 in that scenario. -- allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 655275] Re: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
i686 is 32 bit, so yes, you would want to pass i386 in that scenario. Only x86_64 is recognized as 64-bit. If it will reduce confusion for future maintainers, you could s/i386/x86/ in that patch. The kernel Makefile recognizes both i386 and x86 as do a 32-bit build. -- allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 655275] Re: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
However some distros do support an i386 or i686 kernel build. I'm thinking RHEL specifically. On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:44, Alex Chiang achi...@canonical.com wrote: i686 is 32 bit, so yes, you would want to pass i386 in that scenario. Only x86_64 is recognized as 64-bit. If it will reduce confusion for future maintainers, you could s/i386/x86/ in that patch. The kernel Makefile recognizes both i386 and x86 as do a 32-bit build. -- allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to dkms in ubuntu. -- Mario Limonciello supe...@gmail.com -- allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 655275] Re: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
Ok, I checked with mjg59. He says that the only difference between 386/586/686 flavors of RHEL is the kernel config, which leads to different compiler optimizations. The ARCH string has nothing to do with that. So passing either i386 or x86 to force a 32-bit build is perfectly safe, even for RHEL. Alternatively, you could just read the top-level kernel Makefile and search for uname -m. You'll see what we do with SUBARCH and ARCH; a little further down, you can see the x86-specific section for SRCARCH. I think the patch might break if we try to build a 64-bit module on a 32-bit host, I haven't tested that combo; but it should be extremely rare anyway. -- allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 655275] Re: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
As mentioned in IRC w/ tseliot, it's better to pass the right argument for the architecture from the template than it is to add individual hacks along the way. On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:54, Mario Limonciello supe...@ubuntu.com wrote: However some distros do support an i386 or i686 kernel build. I'm thinking RHEL specifically. On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:44, Alex Chiang achi...@canonical.com wrote: i686 is 32 bit, so yes, you would want to pass i386 in that scenario. Only x86_64 is recognized as 64-bit. If it will reduce confusion for future maintainers, you could s/i386/x86/ in that patch. The kernel Makefile recognizes both i386 and x86 as do a 32-bit build. -- allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to dkms in ubuntu. -- Mario Limonciello supe...@gmail.com -- Mario Limonciello supe...@gmail.com -- allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 655275] Re: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
** Tags added: patch -- allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 655275] Re: allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
** Patch added: do-build-respect-arch.patch https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275/+attachment/1673613/+files/do-build-respect-arch.patch -- allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
