Re: Please test xen/stable-2.6.32.x in xen.git

["Olivier B." <xen.list@daevel.fr>]

On 31/03/2010 22:35, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 01:10 PM, Olivier B. wrote:
>> On 31/03/2010 19:58, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> If you haven't already, could you please test out the 
>>> xen/stable-2.6.32.x branch.  It has been working fairly well for me, 
>>> but I'd like to get some wider testing coverage before we make it 
>>> the default branch.
>>>
>>> To switch over, cd into your kernel directory, and type "git 
>>> checkout xen/stable-2.6.32.x" and rebuild.
>>>
>>> This kernel is currently based on 2.6.32.10.  The main missing 
>>> feature from xen/master is that it doesn't have netchannel2.  Is 
>>> anybody using that yet?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>     J
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> for me it doesn't compile anymore :
>>
>>   CC      mm/vmalloc.o
>> mm/vmalloc.c:582: error: expected declaration specifiers or ‘...’ 
>> before ‘&’ token
>> mm/vmalloc.c:582: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
>> mm/vmalloc.c:582: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of 
>> ‘__spin_unlock’
>> mm/vmalloc.c:582: warning: function declaration isn’t a prototype
>> mm/vmalloc.c:582: error: conflicting types for ‘__spin_unlock’
>> include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:349: note: previous definition of 
>> ‘__spin_unlock’ was here
>> mm/vmalloc.c:583: error: expected identifier or ‘(’ before ‘}’ token
>> make[2]: *** [mm/vmalloc.o] Erreur 1
>> make[1]: *** [mm] Erreur 2
>> make[1]: quittant le répertoire « 
>> /home/daevel/linux/linux-xen-2.6.32.x »
>> make: *** [debian/stamp/build/kernel] Erreur 2
>>
>> I compiled with "make-kpkg --revision=1.0 
>> --append-to-version=-dae-dom0 kernel_image kernel_headers", and gcc 
>> version 4.4.3 (Debian 4.4.3-3).
>>
>> Did I miss something ?
>
> No, there was a silly typo in xen/stable.  I committed a fix for it, 
> but note that I'm specifically talking about xen/stable-2.6.32.x, 
> which differs from xen/stable by having slightly experimental PAT 
> support in it, which I'd like to shake out before saying "this is the 
> ``official'' stable kernel".
>
> Thanks,
>     J

Ok, I had not seen the difference, sorry. I will recheck (and thanks for 
the typo fix).

Olivier