xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RedHat 7.0 - unbootable

To: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RedHat 7.0 - unbootable
From: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 19:13:58 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSI.4.10.10010011822360.15807-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from knuffie@xxxxxxxxx on Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 06:26:08PM +0200
References: <20001001134746.A16566@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.BSI.4.10.10010011822360.15807-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 06:26:08PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 12:58:13PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
> > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, utz lehmann wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Andi Kleen [ak@xxxxxxx] wrote:
> > > > >       .long SYMBOL_NAME(sys_ni_syscall)
> > > > > 
> > > > > for each attr line ? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Andi
> > > > 
> > > > yes, it work with my pre beta kernel from 2000-08-17.
> > > > 
> > > > and todays cvs kernel (2.4.0-test8 based) works too (without the change
> > > > above).
> > > 
> > > Thomas can you put in the FAQ that for booting xfs kernels under redhat 7
> > > you would need the cvs kernel (eg test8-xfs). ;-)
> > 
> > I guess it would be better to fix the beta: move the attr_* syscalls 
> > to the system call slots of test8-xfs (that is 2 slots moved) or even
> > better remove them until a stable interface is found [as far as I 
> > understand they're not very well tested yet anyways] 
> > 
> > -Andi
> 
> It would take some days (week) before they could ship a test8 beta. (??)

You don't need a test8 beta, just remove the bogus system calls or at least
move them to their test8 positions (2 up). It would probably be better to remove
them, because with the next system call added by Linus the same problem
will occur. 

-Andi

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>