Exporting new functions from kernel 2.2.14

Hello, all. I am writing a pseudo-realtime control system, based on kernel 2.2.14. The only RT-like task needs to hang off the timer IRQ. I am using techniques like those in the book "Linux Kernel Internals", by Beck, et al.. The patches in that book won't apply (they are for 2.1.24 or lower),

Re: Exporting new functions from kernel 2.2.14

Thanks. Actually, the symbols in question aren't in modules. The kernel is module enabled, but all drivers are being compiled in (this is for an embedded system). My external module (which needs to grab the timer interrupt) is in a separate source tree. Thanks for the printk info - I guess bon

Re: Exporting new functions from kernel 2.2.14

um. duh. Thanks. I guess it helps to know the right FM to R. :) Arthur had pointed out that modules.h should be included, then kernel.h. Is there a place where I can find out more about header file order dependencies? (damn - that sounds like a Microsoft help question) Keith Owens wrote: >

Re: Exporting new functions from kernel 2.2.14

Well, my rebuild kernel / reboot / recompile module just finished. Unfortunately, the printk warning was still there. I replaced the unconditional #define MODVERSIONS with #include #ifdef CONFIG_MODVERSIONS #define MODVERSIONS #include #endif this is at the top of my source file. (before modu

Re: APIC usb MPS 1.4 and the 2.4.2 kernel

CPUs and 1G RAM (EDO - it's 4 years old). They have newer boards with 6 PCI (64 bit, 66 MHz) + 1 AGP slot. Their boards are very high quality - though you'll pay for the reliability in $$$. -- Stephen Wille Padnos Programmer, Engineer, Problem Solver [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscrib

Re: [OT] Interrupting select

"Peter T. Breuer" wrote: [snip]> um, shouldn't you be testing for res==-1, as well? > > specifically that condition and errno==EINTR is how I'd expect > > signals to effect the loop... [snip] > I assumed that "error" is something like trying to watch for a > negative number or zero descriptors

Re: VIA VT82C686X

Byron Stanoszek wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, David D.W. Downey wrote: > > > I removed the ide and ata setting. System is running stably as in no > > kernel crashes, but I am getting daemon and shell crashes. With this > > current kernel I've had 1 kernel crash in about 3 hours as compared to 1 >

Re: Promise, DMA and RAID5 problems running 2.4.1

eason why SCSI is preferred for high end systems - you can "disconnect" from an IO operation to allow other IO's to be sent to other devices on the same bus) -- Stephen Wille Padnos Programmer, Engineer, Problem Solver [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send t

Re: [PATCH] micro-opt DEBUG_ADD_PAGE

declares the struct as volatile, and the second case declares the pointer volatile (the third case declares a volatile pointer to a structure with volatile parts). So, the programmer should have the choice, if gcc is dealing with volatile correctly. Of course, that doesn't mean that the

Re: [PATCH] micro-opt DEBUG_ADD_PAGE

"Richard B. Johnson" wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Stephen Wille Padnos wrote: > > > "Richard B. Johnson" wrote: > > [snip] > > > Another problem with 'volatile' has to do with pointers. When > > > it's possib