Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Shirley Ma wrote:
>> I am not sure whether this already has an answer.
>> The justification is madvise(..., MADV_DONTFORK) is used to make fork()
>> work for verbs consumers in the recent packages. I hope same patch will
>> be in libehca.
> Just to crlarify: libibverbs-1.X d
Shirley Ma wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/16/2006 01:50:49 PM:
> > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 15:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Quoting r. Maestas, Christopher Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > So I would think rhel5 would have at least that or greater. When I
> > > > compiled
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/16/2006 01:50:49 PM:
> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 15:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Quoting r. Maestas, Christopher Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Subject: Re: [openib-general] RHEL5 and OFED ...
> > >
> > > > No
Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hmm, no, I really want to take a srpm from amd64 and get a 32 bit
> > gcc executable that will build 64 bit binaries that match these
> > built on native amd64 system exectly.
>
> Between just i386 and x86_64, you might be able to do that.
I guess
Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: RHEL5 and OFED ...
>
> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 06:01 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Far easier would be to go the other way around,
> > > run on x86_64 and build for i386, in which ca
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 06:01 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Far easier would be to go the other way around,
> > run on x86_64 and build for i386, in which case gcc supports that out of
> > the box.
>
> All that's left is to convince Lenovo there'
Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Far easier would be to go the other way around,
> run on x86_64 and build for i386, in which case gcc supports that out of
> the box.
All that's left is to convince Lenovo there's a market for x86_64
thinkpads.
--
MST
__
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 23:48 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Subject: Re: RHEL5 and OFED ...
> >
> > On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 22:28 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On a tangent, is there a way to set up a cross-build environment that will
> >
Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: RHEL5 and OFED ...
>
> On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 22:28 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On a tangent, is there a way to set up a cross-build environment that will
> > build kernel modules for e.g. RHEL amd64 kernel on a 32 bit machine?
>
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 22:28 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On a tangent, is there a way to set up a cross-build environment that will
> build kernel modules for e.g. RHEL amd64 kernel on a 32 bit machine?
> I'm doing this now with gcc and kernel.org kernel I built myself from source.
> I guess
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 22:23 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Evidently, I was mistaken and rhn is still populated with the beta1
> > rpms. So, I've made the latest kernel available on my web page as
> > referenced below (amongst other rpms as well).
On a tangent, is there a way to set up a cross-build environment that will
build kernel modules for e.g. RHEL amd64 kernel on a 32 bit machine?
I'm doing this now with gcc and kernel.org kernel I built myself from source.
I guess I mostly need to get gcc and binutils SRPMs to generate
cross-compili
Quoting Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Evidently, I was mistaken and rhn is still populated with the beta1
> rpms. So, I've made the latest kernel available on my web page as
> referenced below (amongst other rpms as well). However, it may still be
> a while before the rpms are fully populat
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 17:09 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Yeah, this is the rolling updates thing I was telling you about. The
> > Beta1 kernel was 2.6.17+several git repos and patches. We've since
> > updated to 2.6.18, but that was released as an update to the Beta1 isos
> > and trees v
Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: RHEL5 and OFED ...
>
> On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 15:35 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Subject: Re: RHEL5 and OFED ...
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 22:14 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin
Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: RHEL5 and OFED ...
>
> On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 22:14 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Sorry. RHEL5 Beta1 has been out for a while, but OFED 1.1 still isn't
> > > done yet. Obviously,
Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I do put the releases into the changelog. There has not been a
> libibverbs 1.0.4 release yet, but you can find the entry
>
> 2006-05-02 Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Release version 1.0.3.
>
> in the libibverbs ChangeLog. Every
Michael> Hmm, Roland, I went to look into Changelog and I note
Michael> that you don't label svn versions or release versions
Michael> there. So it's hard to see what was fixed in what
Michael> version, or to map to svn versions.
Michael> I'll dig that info up but I thin we wan
Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Dough, would it be possible to update this + libmthca?
>
> Possibly. What's the justification? What's in 1.0.4 that is the
> primary reason for wanting to update from 1.0.3?
Hmm, Roland, I went to look into Changelog and I note that you don't
lab
On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 15:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting r. Maestas, Christopher Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Subject: Re: [openib-general] RHEL5 and OFED ...
> >
> > > Now for userspace - does RHEL5 include at least libibverbs-1.0?
> > > T
Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 1. The first thing would be to list fixes between 2.6.18 and 2.6.19-rc1 and
> >backport these. Some of them are in OFED.
>
> That would be helpful. Since 2.6.19-rc looks to have integrated the
> iWARP merge, the fixes are no doubt mixed in with
Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: RHEL5 and OFED ...
>
> Michael> 1. The first thing would be to list fixes between 2.6.18
> Michael> and 2.6.19-rc1 and backport these. Some of them are in
> Michael> OFED.
>
> If you want to do this, I think it would be grea
Quoting r. Maestas, Christopher Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [openib-general] RHEL5 and OFED ...
>
> > Now for userspace - does RHEL5 include at least libibverbs-1.0?
> > This has been released a while back, and Roland makes regular bugfix
> releases.
Michael> 1. The first thing would be to list fixes between 2.6.18
Michael> and 2.6.19-rc1 and backport these. Some of them are in
Michael> OFED.
If you want to do this, I think it would be great to also submit the
patches to -stable for inclusion in 2.6.18.x.
- R.
__
On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 17:59 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Subject: Re: RHEL5 and OFED ...
> >
> > On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 22:14 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Sorry. RHEL5 Beta1 has be
> Now for userspace - does RHEL5 include at least libibverbs-1.0?
> This has been released a while back, and Roland makes regular bugfix
releases.
Here's what I see on a rhel4 u4 system:
---
$ rpm -q libibverbs
libibverbs-1.0.3-1
---
So I would think rhel5 would have at least that or greater. Wh
Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: RHEL5 and OFED ...
>
> On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 22:14 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Sorry. RHEL5 Beta1 has been out for a while, but OFED 1.1 still isn't
> > > done yet. Obviously,
Quoting r. Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sorry. RHEL5 Beta1 has been out for a while, but OFED 1.1 still isn't
> done yet. Obviously, I wasn't able to get something in RHEL5 that
> didn't even exist prior to freeze.
Would it be possible to include patches backporting fixes in infiniband ke
28 matches
Mail list logo
