kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Terminator]

I tried to compile 2.4.14 with loop back device as kernel module, and
got the following error. It seems it's removed from

ld -m elf_i386 -T /usr/src/linux-2.4.14/arch/i386/vmlinux.lds -e stext arch/i386/kernel/head.o arch/i386/kernel/init_task.o init/main.o init/version.o \
        --start-group \
        arch/i386/kernel/kernel.o arch/i386/mm/mm.o kernel/kernel.o mm/mm.o fs/fs.o ipc/ipc.o \
         drivers/char/char.o drivers/block/block.o drivers/misc/misc.o drivers/net/net.o drivers/media/media.o drivers/ide/idedriver.o drivers/cdrom/driver.o drivers/pci/driver.o drivers/pnp/pnp.o drivers/video/video.o \
        net/network.o \
        /usr/src/linux-2.4.14/arch/i386/lib/lib.a /usr/src/linux-2.4.14/lib/lib.a /usr/src/linux-2.4.14/arch/i386/lib/lib.a \
        --end-group \
        -o vmlinux
drivers/block/block.o: In function `lo_send':
drivers/block/block.o(.text+0x86bf): undefined reference to `deactivate_page'
drivers/block/block.o(.text+0x8709): undefined reference to `deactivate_page'

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Mike Fedyk]

On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 07:39:29PM -0800, Terminator wrote:
> I tried to compile 2.4.14 with loop back device as kernel module, and
> got the following error. It seems it's removed from
> 
> ld -m elf_i386 -T /usr/src/linux-2.4.14/arch/i386/vmlinux.lds -e stext arch/i386/kernel/head.o arch/i386/kernel/init_task.o init/main.o init/version.o \
>         --start-group \
>         arch/i386/kernel/kernel.o arch/i386/mm/mm.o kernel/kernel.o mm/mm.o fs/fs.o ipc/ipc.o \
>          drivers/char/char.o drivers/block/block.o drivers/misc/misc.o drivers/net/net.o drivers/media/media.o drivers/ide/idedriver.o drivers/cdrom/driver.o drivers/pci/driver.o drivers/pnp/pnp.o drivers/video/video.o \
>         net/network.o \
>         /usr/src/linux-2.4.14/arch/i386/lib/lib.a /usr/src/linux-2.4.14/lib/lib.a /usr/src/linux-2.4.14/arch/i386/lib/lib.a \
>         --end-group \
>         -o vmlinux
> drivers/block/block.o: In function `lo_send':
> drivers/block/block.o(.text+0x86bf): undefined reference to `deactivate_page'
> drivers/block/block.o(.text+0x8709): undefined reference to `deactivate_page'

Did anyone have this problem with pre8???

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Robert Love]

On Mon, 2001-11-05 at 22:43, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Did anyone have this problem with pre8???

Nope, it was added post-pre8 to final.  The deactivate_page function was
removed completely.

	Robert Love

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Mohammad A. Haque]

On Monday, November 5, 2001, at 11:02 PM, Robert Love wrote:

> On Mon, 2001-11-05 at 22:43, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> Did anyone have this problem with pre8???
>
> Nope, it was added post-pre8 to final.  The deactivate_page function was
> removed completely.

Safe to remove those two lines from loop.c? Other calls of deactive_page 
were just removed it seemed.

--

=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque                              http://www.haque.net/
                                                mhaque@haque.net

   "Alcohol and calculus don't mix.             Developer/Project Lead
    Don't drink and derive." --Unknown          http://wm.themes.org/
                                                batmanppc@themes.org
=====================================================================

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Robert Love]

On Mon, 2001-11-05 at 23:08, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> Safe to remove those two lines from loop.c? Other calls of deactive_page 
> were just removed it seemed.

Yes, it is.  I am sure that will be exactly what 2.4.15-pre1 does.

	Robert Love

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Mike Fedyk]

On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:14:40PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> On Mon, 2001-11-05 at 23:08, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> > Safe to remove those two lines from loop.c? Other calls of deactive_page 
> > were just removed it seemed.
> 
> Yes, it is.  I am sure that will be exactly what 2.4.15-pre1 does.
> 

This is why 2.4.14 should've been 2.4.14pre9!  

I thought Linus was going to keep the changes from pre to final to a
minimum.  Actually, I don't think there should be *any* difference between
the last pre and the released kernel...

Mike

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Todd M. Roy]

When I did, and used a looped an iso image, eventually my
computer froze up.  Using the actual cd, it did not.  So my
personal answer would be no.

-- todd --

>  > Nope, it was added post-pre8 to final.  The deactivate_page function was
>  > removed completely.
>  
>  Safe to remove those two lines from loop.c? Other calls of deactive_page 
>  were just removed it seemed.
>  
>  --
>  
>  =====================================================================
>  Mohammad A. Haque                              http://www.haque.net/
>                                                  mhaque@haque.net
>  
>     "Alcohol and calculus don't mix.             Developer/Project Lead
>      Don't drink and derive." --Unknown          http://wm.themes.org/
>                                                  batmanppc@themes.org
>  =====================================================================
>  
>  -
>  To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>  the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>  More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>  Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>  

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Roeland Th. Jansen]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 07:13:07AM -0500, Todd M. Roy wrote:
> When I did, and used a looped an iso image, eventually my
> computer froze up.  Using the actual cd, it did not.  So my
> personal answer would be no.

when mounting an EFS cd on the loop it also froze. this is _without_
removing the lines. the same happens when I miunt an efs partition from
harddrive with -o loop. also crash. sometimes early. sometimes late.

-- 
Grobbebol's Home                      |  Don't give in to spammers.   -o)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bengel          | Use your real e-mail address   /\
Linux 2.4.13 (apic) SMP 466MHz/768 MB |        on Usenet.             _\_v  

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Mohammad A. Haque]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 03:49 PM, Roeland Th. Jansen wrote:

> when mounting an EFS cd on the loop it also froze. this is _without_
> removing the lines. ...

I'm a little confused. How did you even get a working kernel (or module) 
without removing the lines?

--

=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque                              http://www.haque.net/
                                                mhaque@haque.net

   "Alcohol and calculus don't mix.             Developer/Project Lead
    Don't drink and derive." --Unknown          http://wm.themes.org/
                                                batmanppc@themes.org
=====================================================================

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[J Sloan]

"Mohammad A. Haque" wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 03:49 PM, Roeland Th. Jansen wrote:
>
> > when mounting an EFS cd on the loop it also froze. this is _without_
> > removing the lines. ...
>
> I'm a little confused. How did you even get a working kernel (or module)
> without removing the lines?
>

Probably compiled it modular -

cu

jjs

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[rpjday]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, J Sloan wrote:

> "Mohammad A. Haque" wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 03:49 PM, Roeland Th. Jansen wrote:
> >
> > > when mounting an EFS cd on the loop it also froze. this is _without_
> > > removing the lines. ...
> >
> > I'm a little confused. How did you even get a working kernel (or module)
> > without removing the lines?
> >
> 
> Probably compiled it modular -

if you try to compile it modular, the "make modules" will work, but
the "make modules_install" will choke after copying the modules under
/lib/modules when it tries to run the final "depmod" at the end.

so, yes, i'm curious -- how did he get a final kernel and modules
without removing those lines?

rday

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[J Sloan]

rpjday wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, J Sloan wrote:
>
> > "Mohammad A. Haque" wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 03:49 PM, Roeland Th. Jansen wrote:
> > >
> > > > when mounting an EFS cd on the loop it also froze. this is _without_
> > > > removing the lines. ...
> > >
> > > I'm a little confused. How did you even get a working kernel (or module)
> > > without removing the lines?
> > >
> >
> > Probably compiled it modular -
>
> if you try to compile it modular, the "make modules" will work, but
> the "make modules_install" will choke after copying the modules under
> /lib/modules when it tries to run the final "depmod" at the end.
>
> so, yes, i'm curious -- how did he get a final kernel and modules
> without removing those lines?

I got a kernel and modules without removing those
lines - it complains at depmod, but the kernel and
modules do build and install -

I didn't ever boot to that kernel since the warning
bothered me, and I fixed the source and recompiled
before booting into 2.4.14 -

cu

jjs

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Roeland Th. Jansen]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 01:34:10PM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
> > I'm a little confused. How did you even get a working kernel (or module)
> > without removing the lines?
> >
> 
> Probably compiled it modular -

that's one thing for sure.

-- 
Grobbebol's Home                        |  Don't give in to spammers.   -o)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bengel            | Use your real e-mail address   /\
Linux 2.4.14 (noapic) SMP 466MHz/768 MB |        on Usenet.             _\_v  

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Roeland Th. Jansen]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 04:11:40PM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 03:49 PM, Roeland Th. Jansen wrote:
> 
> > when mounting an EFS cd on the loop it also froze. this is _without_
> > removing the lines. ...
> 
> I'm a little confused. How did you even get a working kernel (or module) 
> without removing the lines?

oh sorry, little dazed & confused, this was with 2.4.13 like shown in
the tagline at that time. just compiled 2.2.14

-- 
Grobbebol's Home                        |  Don't give in to spammers.   -o)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bengel            | Use your real e-mail address   /\
Linux 2.4.14 (noapic) SMP 466MHz/768 MB |        on Usenet.             _\_v  

Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device)

[Anuradha Ratnaweera]

On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:02:36PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2001-11-05 at 22:43, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> >
> > Did anyone have this problem with pre8???
> 
> Nope, it was added post-pre8 to final.  The deactivate_page function was
> removed completely.

Look, Linus.  Things should _not_ happen this way.

Why do we add non-trivial changes when going from last -preX of a test kernel
series to -final?

Please make the last stable -preX the -final _without_ any changes.  This is
the third time this caused problem in recent times (2.4.11-dontuse, parport
compile problems and now loop.o), and why don't we learn from previous
mistakes?

Isn't it stupid that some tarballs in the /pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/ do not even
compile, while those in /pub/linux/kernel/testing/ does?

Regards,

Anuradha

-- 

Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.14-pre7)

I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate
of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ...
		-- F. H. Wales (1936)

Re: Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device)

[Mike Fedyk]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 09:13:14AM +0600, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:02:36PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2001-11-05 at 22:43, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > >
> > > Did anyone have this problem with pre8???
> > 
> > Nope, it was added post-pre8 to final.  The deactivate_page function was
> > removed completely.
> 
> Look, Linus.  Things should _not_ happen this way.
> 
> Why do we add non-trivial changes when going from last -preX of a test kernel
> series to -final?
> 
> Please make the last stable -preX the -final _without_ any changes.  This is
> the third time this caused problem in recent times (2.4.11-dontuse, parport
> compile problems and now loop.o), and why don't we learn from previous
> mistakes?
> 
> Isn't it stupid that some tarballs in the /pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/ do not even
> compile, while those in /pub/linux/kernel/testing/ does?
> 

Here here.

You'd almost expect this from XP-beta to XP-final, but not Linux kernel...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Mike

Re: Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device)

[Anuradha Ratnaweera]

On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 07:17:47PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> 
> Here here.
> 
> You'd almost expect this from XP-beta to XP-final, but not Linux kernel...

Few points.

- I don't believe that there is any such thing stable enough to be caled
  XP-final, or even XP-beta ;)  Specially when compared to the Linux kernel
  standards of stability.

- It is not necessary to compare linux with other low grade software ;)
  They may not work.  But linux do.

- I nevey use nor plan to use XP so I don't care if it doesn't work.

> Sorry, couldn't resist.

I couldn't, too ;)

Regards,

Anuradha

-- 

Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.13)

Three hours a day will produce as much as a man ought to write.
		-- Trollope

Re: Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device)

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 09:13:14AM +0600, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:02:36PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2001-11-05 at 22:43, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > >
> > > Did anyone have this problem with pre8???

	No, there was a different problem that required hand patching.

> > Nope, it was added post-pre8 to final.  The deactivate_page function was
> > removed completely.
> 
> Look, Linus.  Things should _not_ happen this way.

> Why do we add non-trivial changes when going from last -preX of a test kernel
> series to -final?

> Please make the last stable -preX the -final _without_ any changes.  This is
> the third time this caused problem in recent times (2.4.11-dontuse, parport
> compile problems and now loop.o), and why don't we learn from previous
> mistakes?

> Isn't it stupid that some tarballs in the /pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/ do not even
> compile, while those in /pub/linux/kernel/testing/ does?

	linux-2.4.14-pre8 did not compile either if rd.o or loop.o
were compiled as modules, but the names were changed to protect the
guilty (different symbol name, one that wasn't exported).

	Maybe there should have been another -pre.  But the only reason
I was staying on top of the -pre kernels was because I had several major
changes in there, this time around.

> Regards,

> Anuradha

> -- 

> Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.14-pre7)

	-pre7 actually did compile.  -pre8 did not (not without adding
a line to ksyms.c).

> I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate
> of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ...
> 		-- F. H. Wales (1936)

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  mhw@WittsEnd.com
  /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/       |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Re: Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device)

[David Lang]

linus goofed when he missed the two refrences to this function.

however as he pointed out earlier it was a function that could never get
called.

removing a function that can never be called comes pretty close to a
trivial change to me.

even with this mistake it far fewer changes then we have seen in some of
the past -final releases so at the very least it's a step in the right
direction.

David Lang

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:

> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:13:14 +0600
> From: Anuradha Ratnaweera <anuradha@gnu.org>
> To: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, torvalds@transmeta.com
> Cc: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>, Terminator <jimmy@mtc.dhs.org>,
>      linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14
>     compiling fail for loop device)
>
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:02:36PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2001-11-05 at 22:43, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > >
> > > Did anyone have this problem with pre8???
> >
> > Nope, it was added post-pre8 to final.  The deactivate_page function was
> > removed completely.
>
> Look, Linus.  Things should _not_ happen this way.
>
> Why do we add non-trivial changes when going from last -preX of a test kernel
> series to -final?
>
> Please make the last stable -preX the -final _without_ any changes.  This is
> the third time this caused problem in recent times (2.4.11-dontuse, parport
> compile problems and now loop.o), and why don't we learn from previous
> mistakes?
>
> Isn't it stupid that some tarballs in the /pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/ do not even
> compile, while those in /pub/linux/kernel/testing/ does?
>
> Regards,
>
> Anuradha
>
> --
>
> Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.14-pre7)
>
> I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate
> of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ...
> 		-- F. H. Wales (1936)
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Barry K. Nathan]

> When I did, and used a looped an iso image, eventually my
> computer froze up.  Using the actual cd, it did not.  So my
> personal answer would be no.

Hmmm... my *root* filesystem (with /usr, /home, etc. all on it) on one of
my computers is loop mounted, and I've not had such a freeze with 2.4.14
and the two lines removed... Just another data point.

-Barry K. Nathan <barryn@pobox.com>

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Todd M. Roy]

Would you believe that I recompiled 2.4.14 this morning
and can't seem to reproduce it now?

-- todd --

"Barry K. Nathan" wrote:
> 
> > When I did, and used a looped an iso image, eventually my
> > computer froze up.  Using the actual cd, it did not.  So my
> > personal answer would be no.
> 
> Hmmm... my *root* filesystem (with /usr, /home, etc. all on it) on one of
> my computers is loop mounted, and I've not had such a freeze with 2.4.14
> and the two lines removed... Just another data point.
> 
> -Barry K. Nathan <barryn@pobox.com>

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
   .~. Todd Roy, Senior Database Administrator .~.
   /V\    Holstein Association, U.S.A. Inc.    /V\
  // \\          troy@holstein.com            // \\
 /(   )\        1-802-254-4551x4230          /(   )\
  ^^-^^                                       ^^-^^
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
		-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
---------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by 
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
**********************************************************************

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Mohammad A. Haque]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 10:12 AM, Barry K. Nathan wrote:

>> When I did, and used a looped an iso image, eventually my
>> computer froze up.  Using the actual cd, it did not.  So my
>> personal answer would be no.
>
> Hmmm... my *root* filesystem (with /usr, /home, etc. all on it) on one 
> of
> my computers is loop mounted, and I've not had such a freeze with 2.4.14
> and the two lines removed... Just another data point.

Hrm. I just did some stuff on a fs mounted via loopback and no problems.

Mike: it's something in particular you were doing that triggered it or 
something else completely?

--

=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque                              http://www.haque.net/
                                                mhaque@haque.net

   "Alcohol and calculus don't mix.             Developer/Project Lead
    Don't drink and derive." --Unknown          http://wm.themes.org/
                                                batmanppc@themes.org
=====================================================================

Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device

[Mohammad A. Haque]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 10:38 AM, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> Hrm. I just did some stuff on a fs mounted via loopback and no problems.
>
> Mike: it's something in particular you were doing that triggered it or 
> something else completely?

Whoops,

That question should have been "is it..." and directed to Todd.

--

=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque                              http://www.haque.net/
                                                mhaque@haque.net

   "Alcohol and calculus don't mix.             Developer/Project Lead
    Don't drink and derive." --Unknown          http://wm.themes.org/
                                                batmanppc@themes.org
=====================================================================