Re: modules in 2.6 kernel - question for FAQ?

Re: modules in 2.6 kernel - question for FAQ?

[Rusty Russell]

On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 05:42, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> insmod: error inserting './Intel537.ko': -1 Invalid module format

They didn't use -fno-common.  The patch which adds in the warning got
lost a while back.

Here's a new one...
Rusty.

Name: Print Warning for Common Symbols
Status: Trivial

People still build modules wrong, particularly without -fno-common.
The resulting modules don't load, but we should at least warn about it.

diff -urpN --exclude TAGS -X /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal .17714-linux-2.6.5-bk2/kernel/module.c .17714-linux-2.6.5-bk2.updated/kernel/module.c
--- .17714-linux-2.6.5-bk2/kernel/module.c	2004-04-15 09:24:16.000000000 +1000
+++ .17714-linux-2.6.5-bk2.updated/kernel/module.c	2004-04-15 10:32:39.000000000 +1000
@@ -1003,6 +1003,8 @@ static int simplify_symbols(Elf_Shdr *se
 			/* We compiled with -fno-common.  These are not
 			   supposed to happen.  */
 			DEBUGP("Common symbol: %s\n", strtab + sym[i].st_name);
+			printk("%s: please compile with -fno-common\n",
+			       mod->name);
 			ret = -ENOEXEC;
 			break;
 

-- 
Anyone who quotes me in their signature is an idiot -- Rusty Russell

Re: modules in 2.6 kernel - question for FAQ?

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:52:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 05:42, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> > insmod: error inserting './Intel537.ko': -1 Invalid module format
> 
> They didn't use -fno-common.  The patch which adds in the warning got
> lost a while back.
> 
> Here's a new one...

Is it be possible to detect this during the modpost stage, or do they manage to
avoid that in some way?
I would rather see the error a bit earlier. Eventually depmod.
Still your patch make relevance as a double check.

	Sam

Re: modules in 2.6 kernel - question for FAQ?

[Rusty Russell]

On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 14:44, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:52:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 05:42, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> > > insmod: error inserting './Intel537.ko': -1 Invalid module format
> > 
> > They didn't use -fno-common.  The patch which adds in the warning got
> > lost a while back.
> > 
> > Here's a new one...
> 
> Is it be possible to detect this during the modpost stage, or do they manage to
> avoid that in some way?
> I would rather see the error a bit earlier. Eventually depmod.
> Still your patch make relevance as a double check.

They can only do this if they're not using the kernel makefiles.  So I
don't really think it's a priority...

Cheers,
Rusty.
-- 
Anyone who quotes me in their signature is an idiot -- Rusty Russell

Re: modules in 2.6 kernel - question for FAQ?

[Chris Friesen]

Rusty Russell wrote:

> They can only do this if they're not using the kernel makefiles.  So I
> don't really think it's a priority...

Unfortunately some of us have no choice but to use binary-only drivers.

This is starting to change, but they are currently still needed for some 
hardware.

Chris

Re: modules in 2.6 kernel - question for FAQ?

[Arjan van de Ven]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 559 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 15:41, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> 
> > They can only do this if they're not using the kernel makefiles.  So I
> > don't really think it's a priority...
> 
> Unfortunately some of us have no choice but to use binary-only drivers.
> 
> This is starting to change, but they are currently still needed for some 
> hardware.

I think you misunderstood; even binary only module build stuff needs to
use the kernel makefiles, via make -C /path/to/kernel etc, as documented
in Documentation/kbuild/modules.txt


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: modules in 2.6 kernel - question for FAQ?

[Chris Friesen]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> I think you misunderstood; even binary only module build stuff needs to
> use the kernel makefiles, via make -C /path/to/kernel etc, as documented
> in Documentation/kbuild/modules.txt

I know this, you know this.  There are hardware vendors that still do 
not know this--or at least aren't doing it.

Chris