From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 08:01:24 -0500 From: AJ Lewis Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and -ac kernels? Message-ID: <20010910080124.A8459@sistina.com> References: <20010909104606.B967@befunk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6TrnltStXW4iwmi0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010909104606.B967@befunk.com>; from ranger@befunk.com on Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 10:46:06AM -0400 Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: To: linux-lvm@sistina.com --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 10:46:06AM -0400, Benjamin Reed wrote: > I've tried applying 1.0.1-rc2 to 2.4.9-ac9 and it appears > that something's not matching up; I was wondering if anyone > has had any luck with the 2.4.9 ac kernels? >=20 > I get a reject in the Makefile for something that Alan's > already added to his tree, and when I build, I get: >=20 > ---(snip!)--- > make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.9-ac9-eb1/drivers/md' > gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.9-ac9-eb1/include -Wall -Wstrict-pr= ototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-= common -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3D2 -march=3Di686 -c -o lvm.o lv= m.c > lvm.c: In function `__extend_reduce': > lvm.c:2329: warning: implicit declaration of function `min' Yep, this is caused by the great MIN/MAX macro change in the 2.4.9 stock kernel. Alan didn't think it was a good idea, so his AC series kernels still use the old style MIN/MAX macros. Unfortunately, the way the patches are currently generated, any kernel above 2.4.9 is assumed to have the new format. > Feel free to tell me "don't bother with -ac kernels and LVM", all > I *truly* care about from the -ac tree is ext3, but it would be nice > if it's a simple fix. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is. You possibly could go in and manually change the kernel version in the PATCHES/Makefile file to be 2.4.8-ac9; this shouldn't change anything but which versions of the patches are put into the patch and the patch name, but it may not work. I would try this first...if that doesn't work, we'll have to start looking at alternatives. Regards, --=20 AJ Lewis Sistina Software Inc. Voice: 612-638-0500 1313 5th St SE, Suite 111 Fax: 612-638-0500 Minneapolis, MN 55414 E-Mail: lewis@sistina.com http://www.sistina.com Current GPG fingerprint =3D 60F3 160D C0D5 2C4B 751B 4FF9 6F67 E9BC 44CD D= E95 -----Begin Obligatory Humorous Quote---------------------------------------- Employment tip #127: Never take a beer to a job interview. -----End Obligatory Humorous Quote------------------------------------------ --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7nLmkb2fpvETN3pURAoFaAKCbTQHfTqooWcQYwBsJ2y2u1lIe7gCdHZ5S ZrUebhM8/L6sgroNd5vJ0Vk= =hwEt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0--