From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Colp Subject: Re: linux distribution ? Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:18:03 +0100 Message-ID: <4A165FBB.4070208@citrix.com> References: <940bcfd20905210253h2251363ejc779368e704cbe8@mail.gmail.com> <1242901640.5451.286.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1242902574.5451.294.camel@localhost.localdomain> <940bcfd20905211638q6299220cg60e4f9ef6f058ccc@mail.gmail.com> <4A15E806.9090505@cs.ubc.ca> <940bcfd20905212329w585dd34eg53909280bba3224a@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <940bcfd20905212329w585dd34eg53909280bba3224a@mail.gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Dulloor Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , echo@echoreply.us List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org What exactly is the error you're getting? Also, how are you building linux (what commands)? I checked my config and I have removed the ATA (PATA) driver and compiled the SATA driver into the kernel (not a module). I don't think sending you the config will help much as we may not have the same hardware (and I may have made other machine-specific changes to it... I can't remember). How is your grub configured? Maybe it's a bad option there? Patrick Dulloor wrote: > I hava a sata drive and actually I had taken care of the driver part > (afaik). I cross-verified /proc/modules in initramfs. > When I tried restarting udevd (on initramfs shell), it warns about > deprecated sysfs. > > It does make sense for even me to downgrade back to 8.10. > But, to figure this out, can you please send over your .config ? > > -dulloor > > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Patrick Colp wrote: > >> Yes, I was able to do it. I only down-graded my test box to 8.10 because >> I didn't want to deal with python stuff (and to make sure that errors I >> got when running my code was because of my code and not some sort of >> weird incompatibility). >> >> Sometimes the 2.6.18 driver gets confused with sata stuff. If both the >> regular (pata) and sata drivers are installed, it will pick the wrong >> one. I forget which way around you want to make it... I think you want >> to have the sata ones only, but I'll check in the morning. >> >> If you're not sure which driver you're needing, do an lspci and it'll >> say which IDE system you have (or just remove all pata/ide drivers in >> the kernel config and try again, but you will probably have to remove >> /lib/modules/2.6.18.8-xen first, to make sure the old one doesn't stick >> around by accident). >> >> >> Patrick >> >> >> Dulloor wrote: >>> Is anyone able to boot 2.6.18-xen on 9.04 ubuntu (pvops is fine). >>> >>> - mountroot in my initramfs fails, cause udev doesn't set up any block >>> /dev/<...>. >>> - All required modules seem to be loaded (checked both in scripts and at >>> initramfs shell), but obviously something is missing in 2.6.18 >>> >>> -dulloor >>> >>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Tim Post wrote: >>> >>>> Sorry for top posting, another case in point: >>>> >>>> Depending on the distro, 'awk' might not work for configuring Linux. A >>>> warning could be generated telling the user that installing 'gawk' might >>>> be a good idea. >>>> >>>> Moreover, we warn about the absence of hg, git, bcc, etc. >>>> >>>> The idea is, if the 'check' script spews stderr to some file, that file >>>> becomes a list of stuff that the user would (probably) want to install. >>>> >>>> Again, I am in NO way suggesting ./configure --enable-kernels >>>> --enable-ocaml-stubdom , etc, nor am I suggesting that the script create >>>> Makefiles. I could do that, I would NOT want to maintain it, neither >>>> would anyone else on this list. >>>> >>>> Said script could also 'better advertise' other targets in the Makefile, >>>> i.e. if Mercurial is not installed. At the least, as a 'general >>>> failure', make help could be advertised. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> --Tim >>>> >>>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 18:27 +0800, Tim Post wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 05:53 -0400, Dulloor wrote: >>>>>> Keir et al - >>>>>> >>>>>> I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up >>>>>> spending half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on >>>>>> moving to jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then >>>>>> python version). >>>>>> >>>>>> Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I >>>>>> am interested in is xen development/test environment. >>>>>> >>>>>> -dulloor >>>>> You might consider just building Xen from source (tools and >> hypervisor), >>>>> which takes it completely out of the scope of your package manager. >>>>> >>>>> I know that is taboo in some circles, however it gives you greater >>>>> flexibility when upgrading, while also giving you the ability to test >>>>> experimental patches. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is, doing this often violates enterprise warranties. 99.9% >>>>> of the time, I'd rather just trust my distro when it comes to packages. >>>>> >>>>> When it comes to Xen, I usually recommend (and install) the latest >>>>> faithful official release. The one and only time I just used distro >>>>> packages was with Ubuntu Hardy (LTS) .. and that was chaotic (time >> going >>>>> backwards, etc). >>>>> >>>>> There was once a universal installer script .. can that be resurrected >>>>> and possibly rely on m4 being present for developers? Using that, the >>>>> user knows with no uncertainty exactly what they are missing (and what >>>>> version is needed). >>>>> >>>>> For instance, a dependency on 32 bit stubs when building on x86_64. >>>>> >>>>> It does not have to be named ./configure, it does not have to create >>>>> makefiles and I am happy to maintain it. The drawback is 6k+ lines of >>>>> generated shell code that has to be tracked in the hg. >>>>> >>>>> It could be ... scripts/checkbuildconfig .. or whatever. It would not >> be >>>>> a configuration tool, just a diagnostic tool that offers hints on what >>>>> is needed to build. >>>>> >>>>> Why clutter the Makefile needlessly? A script would be more portable, >>>>> anyway. >>>>> >>>>> This approach has solved this exact problem for decades. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> --Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Xen-devel mailing list >>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Xen-devel mailing list >>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Xen-devel mailing list >>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel