On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> wrote: > [...] > > > > So, following the instructions here: > > http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Custom_Kernel, I did the following: > > > > 1. Added the patch ( unionfs-2.4_for_2.6.18-RHEL5.diff ) to > > ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES, and referenced it in > > ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/kernel-2.6.spec . > > > > 2.Turned off the KABI check and provided a new buildid in the > > kernel-2.6.spec in ~/rpmbuild/SPECS > > > > 3. Build using rpmbuild -bb --target=`uname -m` --with baseonly > > kernel-2.6.spec > > Right, but I didn't seem to be able to disable the kabichk either on the > command line or in the spec file itself, a bit odd. >
For disabling the kabi check, I followed the instructions given in CentOS HowTo verbatim: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Custom_Kernel, Section 3 (Modifying the kernel spec file) . > But, lets not forget that if you use these rpms later some time and you > have another third party module on the machine that relies on this kabi > function then it will break and you will probably have forgotten the > kabi issue by then, caught!!! It's best to at least maintain the kabi in > the RHEL kernel if possible. Correct. Even if I try to spin a custom kernel ( and thereby forgo the kabi ), it may well not work ! Is it possible to apply the unionfs patch to RHEL kernel, without breaking the ABI - I guess not ! > > > > and the build went fine. I haven't yet tried the new kernel and > > module, but Erez mentioned in one of the messages about XATTR support > > in unionfs thus: > > > > http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/pipermail/unionfs/2008-May/005849.html > > > > >Andy, there's no xattr support in unionfs for 2.6.18 (the VFS was > > lacking > > >some vital support, I don't recommend it). So plz turn off > > >CONFIG_UNION_FS_XATTR. > > > > However, Without the CONFIG_UNION_FS_XATTR=y insertion into spec file, > > the build fails !! > > > > Hence I'm wondering whether will this workaround work ? And do we have > > a solution to this issue already, which I may have missed ? > > Have to wait a while and see if I can build it I guess. > > Ian > Tried the new kernel... its kernel panic ! I sensed that unionfs design is in conflict with the VFS layer, is that issue resolved ?
_______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
