From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AVXj7-0003Pf-HD for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:00:09 -0800 Received: from smtp005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.36]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AVXj7-0003Il-21 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:00:09 -0800 From: BlaisorBlade Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [PATCH]Modules support in 2.6: reaching the complete fix References: <200312131828.03645.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> <200312132019.hBDKJ8rL002905@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> In-Reply-To: <200312132019.hBDKJ8rL002905@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312141604.32309.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:04:32 +0100 To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net First, I tried without CONFIG_MODVERSIONS, and the panic doesn't happen(which was obvious, since the offending code is compiled #ifdef MODVERSIONS) and no other one appears. And the module loading works. Only thing which obviously can't work is the umlgdb script; I need 2.6 Uml modules because I need to test a change to the 2.6 loop device(i.e. the partition support). [About user_ksyms.c] > Yeah, this is nasty, but I couldn't think of any way of handling this > without just copying stuff. Yes, I understand you've tried(though I don't know why user code can't include even some kernel headers, but that's my fault). > > 2) then, the UML build system is broken for USER_OBJS. > > This is separate from the module problem. It still needs fixing though. Yes, but the general rule does some post-processing which is needed for modules. See scripts/Makefile.build:134 and following ones(around the "cmd_modversions" definition). > > It would be nice just to have something in one Makefile, like > arch/um/Makefile, which makes this work. I haven't looked at whether this > is possible. I'm going to try! > > And for this, I cannot help because I've not enough experience with > > link scripts(I've been able to learn the syntax, but I don't know the > > reason why some section missing in the i386 appear in the UML script; > > some are from libc, but I don't know which ones). > > The ones you deleted are all kernel sections. I understand this well(I'm aware of how are they born), but check and see that the RODATA macro, know, already includes them... so it's useless(if not harmful, but it shouldn't) to list them twice. Bye -- cat <