In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ngo, Andrew" writes: > Hi, Erez, > > Thanks for your advice, I turn off the CONFIG_UNION_FS_XATTR and the > compile error "implicit declaration of function > 'vfs_listxattr'" goes away. Thank you so much. The compilation was on > kernel directory patched with unionfs-2.3.3_for_2.6.18.8.centos5.diff.gz > (file size 241K) sent by Fernando Gomes. > > I also want to feed back to you on the patch file you just created > unionfs-2.3.3_for_2.6.18-RHEL5.diff.gz (file size 88K). The patch > command on this diff file generated some errors (See patch.out). I > don't know if the patch failures are caused by the minor revision > difference on the RHEL5 (My RHEL5 has kernel version of 2.6.18-8, the > kernel tarball that Konard provided to you has version of 2.6.18-53 - > RHEL5.1 kernel), or the patch failures are caused by other things. > > Anyway, for the time being, I will patch with > unionfs-2.3.3_for_2.6.18.8.centos5.diff.gz, compile with > CONFIG_UNION_FS_XATTR turned off, and will be moving to the testing > phase of unionfs soon. If you happen to create another version of > unionfs-2.3.3_for_2.6.18-RHEL5.diff.gz, I will be glad to test it for > you. > > Once again, thanks to everyone that helped with this patching problem. > > Andy Ngo
You got 2 patch segment failures, and several ones which had to be offset. The latter are nothing to worry about. The two failures are important, however. The reason for these changes is that the kernel you have applied my patch against isn't the same as what Konrad gave me. If you give me a different tarball for a different centos/rhel kernel, I'll be happy to produce a clean patch for that one as well. Cheers, Erez. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
