From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932445AbWARBJ7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:09:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932440AbWARBJ7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:09:59 -0500 Received: from nlpproxy08.prodigy.net.mx ([148.235.52.28]:8692 "EHLO smtp.prodigy.net.mx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932445AbWARBJ6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:09:58 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:11:13 -0600 From: Gain Paolo Mureddu Subject: Re: [ck] Re: Problems building In-reply-to: <200601181201.53427.kernel@kolivas.org> To: Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <43CD95B1.7010403@prodigy.net.mx> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 X-imss-version: 2.035 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:99.90000 C:2 M:3 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:3 C:4 M:4 S:4 R:4 (0.5000 0.5000) References: <43CD8FB7.90508@prodigy.net.mx> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Con Kolivas wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:45 am, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote: > >> For some reason I am getting a strange message when I try to >> build either -ck1 or 2, another message I tried to send to the >> list seems to not have gotten where I intended to, I'm quoting >> that message here also: > > > The list is filtered due to my minimal resources and inability to > have any formal spam filtering so only members or approved emails > get through and everything else silently dropped. Sorry about any > inconvenience. I've added your email to accept and cc'ed the > mailing list now. > >> Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote: >> >>> So I have been struggling to get this kernel built, and >>> apparently I've narrowed this down to the sched_iso3.2 and/or >>> isobatch_ionice patches, however I can't be fully certain. Here >>> is what is dumped to the console, I've gotten two dumps, this >>> and one concerning sched.o, which I am still investigating. So >>> here goes the dump: >>> >>> .... [snip] CC init/do_mounts_md.o In file >>> included from include/linux/bio.h:25, from >>> include/linux/blkdev.h:14, from include/linux/raid/md.h:21, >>> from init/do_mounts_md.c:2: include/linux/ioprio.h: En la >>> función ?task_nice_ioprio?: include/linux/ioprio.h:58: error: >>> ?SCHED_BATCH? not declared here (first use in this function) >>> include/linux/ioprio.h:58: error: (Each undeclared identifier >>> is only reported once include/linux/ioprio.h:58: error: for >>> each function it appears in.) include/linux/ioprio.h:60: error: >>> ?SCHED_ISO? not declared here (first use in this function) >>> make[1]: *** [init/do_mounts_md.o] Error 1 make: *** [init] >>> Error 2 Anyone else with troubles in x86_64 >>> systems? >>> >>> TIA! >> >> I get the same error, thus far I know that the file in question >> (iprio.h) inclues sched.h and that in sched.h SCHED_BATCH and >> SCHED_ISO are defined, so why am I getting this error in the said >> function, is beyond me. >> >> Any pointers? > > > These errors do not occur with the full patch. Are you using any > split patches or just the full patch? Separating out patches is not > a trivial thing to do. > > Cheers, Con I'm using the broken-out tree as I am trying to integrate the patches into a custom Fedora Kernel (basically Fedora's kernel patches, with CK added), and given the nature of RPM build (well not that, but the way the .speck is put together for Fedora) I chose to go with the broken out tree and apply most patches (those which are not repeted) one by one. I apparently found out what the problem was: for some reason schedbatch and schediso were failing at placing the #define's in place for SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_ISO in sched.h, an easy fix when done by hand, directly to the file in question. I am trying to see how to merge these two into one, but you're right, I may be off better going with the "full" version rather than the broken-out (it's given me more head-aches than it is apparently worth having! hehe) Thanks for your reply and for adding my e-mail, Con. I thought this e-mail address was already allowed to send e-mail to the list... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDzZWwXM+XOp70dwoRAtvQAJ4lJu6AORDSxdqtJnL0ZCYIZLZJwgCeL/FK bCzB0TqywrBPSReH175ZtMQ= =xklM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----