I am still have trouble with the 2.3 sysctl.c. There are missing definitions
that I can't seem to locate with grep and cscope, like KERN_MSGMNI,
KERN_SEM,KERN_MAX_THREADS, etc. Looked in /usr/src/linux as well as
/usr/include. Recognize these? I'm trying to figure out which include is
missing from sysctl.c.
All I have done is copy the 2.3 CVS tree over the 2.3.99pre9 tree; I'm trying
to get it to compile now, it hasn't worked "out of the box".
On 13-Jun-2000 Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> I can login and check it out. It should build, but there may
> be problems with the sysctl stuff (it didn't fail for me, but ...)
>
> Can you send me the login method again, Brian?
>
> --Matt
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Brian Hall wrote:
>|>Well, I copied the 2.3 tree over top of my 2.3.99pre9 tree, and I'm having
>|>problems building. I manually added the config_vm_dump menuconfig for Alpha
>|>in
>|>config.in, but turned it off for now. I am having trouble with sysctl.c and
>|>.h-
>|>it looks to me like somehow the 2.2 kernel versions of sysctl.* are in the
>|>2.3
>|>LKCD CVS tree (depends on lists.h vice list.h) ?
>|>
>|>I've been trying to fix this as each compiler warning comes up, but one of
>|>you
>|>might want to check this. Something is not right here. Has anyone verified
>|>that
>|>the CVS 2.3 tree will build properly when copied over 2.3.99pre9 lately?
>|>
>|>
>|>On 09-Jun-2000 Tom Morano wrote:
>|>> Brian Hall wrote:
>|>>>
>|>>> Had a teleconference with Compaq's Linux Program Office today. One of the
>|>>> things to come out of that was the desire to move forward to the 2.4
>|>>> kernel
>|>>> (possibly back porting the Alpha LKCD support to 2.2 if needed), also
>|>>> move
>|>>> this
>|>>> direction since there are some corporate politics involved now. Even
>|>>> though
>|>>> there have been Compaq contributions to Linux before, this situation is
>|>>> different so I am a "test case". Boils down to I expect it to be awhile
>|>>> before I
>|>>> get "permission" to put my work onto Sourceforge (i.e. merge it with your
>|>>> tree). I am not at all happy about this, I was under the impression it
>|>>> would
>|>>> be
>|>>> much more straightforward. At least everyone here is clear that this is
>|>>> GPLed, and the source must be released at least by the time Compaq ships
>|>>> product.
>|>>>
>|>>> Anyway, Tom, is your ia64 work in the 2.3 tree in CVS? Which development
>|>>> kernel
>|>>> are you using for that (2.3.x, 2.4.0pre, etc.). Hopefully that same
>|>>> kernel
>|>>> rev
>|>>> will boot on my Alpha... first thing to check, there. To apply LKCD from
>|>>> CVS
>|>>> to
>|>>> a fresh kernel, I can just copy the /2.3 files over my kernel directory?
>|>>>
>|>>
>|>> Hi Brian,
>|>>
>|>> The ia64 work I've been doing has been checked into the 2.3 LKCD tree on
>|>> SourceForge
>|>> (which is CVS controlled). As for development kernel, it depends upon if
>|>> you
>|>> are
>|>> talking about the kernel portion of LKCD or LCRASH. With the kernel part,
>|>> much
>|>> of what Matt has done has been checked in. He's been using 2.3.99-pre9 as
>|>> a
>|>> base.
>|>> With LCRASH, it's a lot more flexible (It runs on both 2.3.50 and
>|>> 2.3.99-pre9).
>|>> And
>|>> yes, you can just copy the /2.3 files over a kernel source tree. The 2.3
>|>> directory
>|>> is relative to /usr/src/linux.
>|>>
>|>> Tom
>|>
>|>--
>|>
--
|