Re: Compiling 2.4.1: undefined reference to `__buggy_fxsr_alignment'

2001-01-31 Thread Matt Yourst
I used regular gcc 2.95.2 and it compiled and linked without problems. Thanks. Shawn Starr wrote: > > pgcc borks 2.4.1 kernel and prereleases (sadly I found this out the same > way). > > Shawn. > Matt Yourst wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I just tried to

Compiling 2.4.1: undefined reference to `__buggy_fxsr_alignment'

2001-01-31 Thread Matt Yourst
nt problem.) FYI, I'm compiling with pgcc 2.95.2 and linking with binutils/ld 2.10 (I've used both of these successfully for countless kernel compiles before this.) Anyone else had this problem? - Matt Yourst - Matt T. YourstMas

Compiling 2.4.1: undefined reference to `__buggy_fxsr_alignment'

2001-01-31 Thread Matt Yourst
nt problem.) FYI, I'm compiling with pgcc 2.95.2 and linking with binutils/ld 2.10 (I've used both of these successfully for countless kernel compiles before this.) Anyone else had this problem? - Matt Yourst - Matt T. YourstMas

Re: Compiling 2.4.1: undefined reference to `__buggy_fxsr_alignment'

2001-01-31 Thread Matt Yourst
I used regular gcc 2.95.2 and it compiled and linked without problems. Thanks. Shawn Starr wrote: pgcc borks 2.4.1 kernel and prereleases (sadly I found this out the same way). Shawn. Matt Yourst wrote: Hi, I just tried to compile 2.4.1 and I'm getting the error "unde

Re: / on ramfs, possible? [yes! - patch included]

2000-10-30 Thread Matt Yourst
be updated for other architectures, mostly in setup.c though.) I hope this is helpful. Maybe the maintainers would like to comment on this too (i.e., might it be considered for 2.4.1, etc.?) - Matt Yourst - Matt T. YourstMas

Re: / on ramfs, possible? [yes! - patch included]

2000-10-30 Thread Matt Yourst
e6 on i386. It needs to be updated for other architectures, mostly in setup.c though.) I hope this is helpful. Maybe the maintainers would like to comment on this too (i.e., might it be considered for 2.4.1, etc.?) - Matt Yourst - Matt

[BUG] 2.4.0-test10-pre4: kernel BUG at vmscan.c:102!

2000-10-19 Thread Matt Yourst
The following bug was just logged for 2.4.0-test10-pre4. The machine was recompiling glibc (off a ReiserFS 3.6.18 filesystem) and X was just running a screensaver at the time this happened. X was locked up and I couldn't switch to a console, so I killed it with Alt+SysRq. I was then able to get

[BUG] 2.4.0-test10-pre4: kernel BUG at vmscan.c:102!

2000-10-19 Thread Matt Yourst
The following bug was just logged for 2.4.0-test10-pre4. The machine was recompiling glibc (off a ReiserFS 3.6.18 filesystem) and X was just running a screensaver at the time this happened. X was locked up and I couldn't switch to a console, so I killed it with Alt+SysRq. I was then able to get

Re: Getting past the 16-bit dev_t limitation.

2000-09-14 Thread Matt Yourst
mbers; you just register the name in the /dev/whatever namespace and it's done. (The kernel will assign a unique old-style 16-bit number for compatibility purposes as needed.) See linux/Documentation/filesystems/devfs/README for the full story.

Re: Getting past the 16-bit dev_t limitation.

2000-09-14 Thread Matt Yourst
the name in the /dev/whatever namespace and it's done. (The kernel will assign a unique old-style 16-bit number for compatibility purposes as needed.) See linux/Documentation/filesystems/devfs/README for the full story. - Matt Yourst

2.4.0-test7 doesn't boot on Fujitsu Lifebook 765DX

2000-09-01 Thread Matt Yourst
It looks like 2.4.0-test7 won't boot on a Fujitsu Lifebook 765DX. The kernel immediately hard reboots very early in the setup phase, before it even displays the Uncompressing Linux message (or so it looks.) The machine's relevant specs: Fujitsu Lifebook 765DX Pentium MMX 133 MHz 48 MB of RAM