compiling against lustre 1.8.2 kernel

compiling against lustre 1.8.2 kernel

[Michael Di Domenico]

I ran across an error when trying to compile OFED-1.4.2 agianst the
Lustre 1.8.2 kernel on Redhat v5.4 (2.6.18-164.11.1)

/var/tmp/ofed.topdir/BUILD/ofa_kernel_1.4.2/kernel_addons/backport/2.6.18-EL5.3/include/linux/sched.h:13
error: static declaration of '__fatal_signal_pending' follows
non-static declaration include/linux/sched.h: 1570 error: previous
declaration of '__fatal_signal_pending' was here

Any suggestions?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: compiling against lustre 1.8.2 kernel

[Brian J. Murrell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 653 bytes --]

On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 12:15 -0400, Michael Di Domenico wrote: 
> I ran across an error when trying to compile OFED-1.4.2 agianst the
> Lustre 1.8.2 kernel on Redhat v5.4 (2.6.18-164.11.1)
> 
> /var/tmp/ofed.topdir/BUILD/ofa_kernel_1.4.2/kernel_addons/backport/2.6.18-EL5.3/include/linux/sched.h:13
> error: static declaration of '__fatal_signal_pending' follows
> non-static declaration include/linux/sched.h: 1570 error: previous
> declaration of '__fatal_signal_pending' was here
> 
> Any suggestions?

Have you checked that OFED 1.4.2 supports the RHEL5 2.6.18-164.11.1
kernel?  I don't have release notes handy so I don't know.

b.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: compiling against lustre 1.8.2 kernel

[Michael Di Domenico]

it wouldn't appear so, guess i should have checked that. sorry...  i'm
little baffled how they can claim it supports ofed 1.4.2 on a
2.6.18-146.11.1 kernel if ofed doesn't support a 2.6.18-164.11.1...
but i digress, that questions for another list...



On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Brian J. Murrell
<Brian.Murrell-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 12:15 -0400, Michael Di Domenico wrote:
>> I ran across an error when trying to compile OFED-1.4.2 agianst the
>> Lustre 1.8.2 kernel on Redhat v5.4 (2.6.18-164.11.1)
>>
>> /var/tmp/ofed.topdir/BUILD/ofa_kernel_1.4.2/kernel_addons/backport/2.6.18-EL5.3/include/linux/sched.h:13
>> error: static declaration of '__fatal_signal_pending' follows
>> non-static declaration include/linux/sched.h: 1570 error: previous
>> declaration of '__fatal_signal_pending' was here
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> Have you checked that OFED 1.4.2 supports the RHEL5 2.6.18-164.11.1
> kernel?  I don't have release notes handy so I don't know.
>
> b.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: compiling against lustre 1.8.2 kernel

[Brian J. Murrell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1054 bytes --]

On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 13:32 -0400, Michael Di Domenico wrote: 
> it wouldn't appear so, guess i should have checked that. sorry...  i'm
> little baffled how they can claim it supports ofed 1.4.2 on a
> 2.6.18-146.11.1 kernel if ofed doesn't support a 2.6.18-164.11.1...
> but i digress, that questions for another list...

Indeed, it is, so any followups should be CC'd to
lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org and should likely drop the linux-rdma
list.  Anyone interested in following, can subscribe to lustre-discuss.

But to address the confusion regarding 2.6.18-164.11.1 and the statement
of support for OFED 1.4.2 in the Lustre release notes, the list of
supported OFED releases and supported vendor kernels is not intended to
be a complete and exhaustive matrix.  We can of course, only provide
support where there is upstream support (i.e. intersection).

I have Bcc'd our release manager to have some verbage to that extent
(i.e. that the matrix is not complete) to our future release notes.

Cheers,
b.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]