* kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device @ 2001-11-06 3:39 Terminator 2001-11-06 3:43 ` Mike Fedyk 2001-11-06 4:02 ` Robert Love 0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Terminator @ 2001-11-06 3:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel 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' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-06 3:39 kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device Terminator @ 2001-11-06 3:43 ` Mike Fedyk 2001-11-06 4:02 ` Robert Love 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Mike Fedyk @ 2001-11-06 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Terminator; +Cc: linux-kernel 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??? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-06 3:39 kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device Terminator 2001-11-06 3:43 ` Mike Fedyk @ 2001-11-06 4:02 ` Robert Love 2001-11-06 4:08 ` Mohammad A. Haque 2001-11-07 3:13 ` Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) Anuradha Ratnaweera 1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Robert Love @ 2001-11-06 4:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Fedyk; +Cc: Terminator, linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-06 4:02 ` Robert Love @ 2001-11-06 4:08 ` Mohammad A. Haque 2001-11-06 4:14 ` Robert Love 2001-11-07 12:13 ` Todd M. Roy 2001-11-07 3:13 ` Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) Anuradha Ratnaweera 1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Mohammad A. Haque @ 2001-11-06 4:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Love; +Cc: Mike Fedyk, Terminator, linux-kernel 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 ===================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-06 4:08 ` Mohammad A. Haque @ 2001-11-06 4:14 ` Robert Love 2001-11-06 4:29 ` Mike Fedyk 2001-11-07 12:13 ` Todd M. Roy 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Robert Love @ 2001-11-06 4:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mohammad A. Haque; +Cc: Mike Fedyk, Terminator, linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-06 4:14 ` Robert Love @ 2001-11-06 4:29 ` Mike Fedyk 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Mike Fedyk @ 2001-11-06 4:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Love; +Cc: Mohammad A. Haque, Terminator, linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-06 4:08 ` Mohammad A. Haque 2001-11-06 4:14 ` Robert Love @ 2001-11-07 12:13 ` Todd M. Roy 2001-11-07 20:49 ` Roeland Th. Jansen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Todd M. Roy @ 2001-11-07 12:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mhaque; +Cc: rml, mfedyk, jimmy, linux-kernel 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/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-07 12:13 ` Todd M. Roy @ 2001-11-07 20:49 ` Roeland Th. Jansen 2001-11-07 21:11 ` Mohammad A. Haque 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Roeland Th. Jansen @ 2001-11-07 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Todd M. Roy; +Cc: mhaque, rml, mfedyk, jimmy, linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-07 20:49 ` Roeland Th. Jansen @ 2001-11-07 21:11 ` Mohammad A. Haque 2001-11-07 21:34 ` J Sloan 2001-11-07 21:40 ` Roeland Th. Jansen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Mohammad A. Haque @ 2001-11-07 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roeland Th. Jansen; +Cc: Todd M. Roy, rml, mfedyk, jimmy, linux-kernel 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 ===================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-07 21:11 ` Mohammad A. Haque @ 2001-11-07 21:34 ` J Sloan 2001-11-07 11:58 ` rpjday 2001-11-07 21:41 ` Roeland Th. Jansen 2001-11-07 21:40 ` Roeland Th. Jansen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: J Sloan @ 2001-11-07 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mohammad A. Haque; +Cc: Linux kernel "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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-07 21:34 ` J Sloan @ 2001-11-07 11:58 ` rpjday 2001-11-07 21:44 ` J Sloan 2001-11-07 21:41 ` Roeland Th. Jansen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: rpjday @ 2001-11-07 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: J Sloan; +Cc: Mohammad A. Haque, Linux kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-07 11:58 ` rpjday @ 2001-11-07 21:44 ` J Sloan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: J Sloan @ 2001-11-07 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rpjday; +Cc: Linux kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-07 21:34 ` J Sloan 2001-11-07 11:58 ` rpjday @ 2001-11-07 21:41 ` Roeland Th. Jansen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Roeland Th. Jansen @ 2001-11-07 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: J Sloan; +Cc: Mohammad A. Haque, Linux kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device 2001-11-07 21:11 ` Mohammad A. Haque 2001-11-07 21:34 ` J Sloan @ 2001-11-07 21:40 ` Roeland Th. Jansen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Roeland Th. Jansen @ 2001-11-07 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mohammad A. Haque; +Cc: Todd M. Roy, rml, mfedyk, jimmy, linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) 2001-11-06 4:02 ` Robert Love 2001-11-06 4:08 ` Mohammad A. Haque @ 2001-11-07 3:13 ` Anuradha Ratnaweera 2001-11-07 3:17 ` Mike Fedyk ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Anuradha Ratnaweera @ 2001-11-07 3:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Love, torvalds; +Cc: Mike Fedyk, Terminator, linux-kernel 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) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) 2001-11-07 3:13 ` Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) Anuradha Ratnaweera @ 2001-11-07 3:17 ` Mike Fedyk 2001-11-07 3:27 ` Anuradha Ratnaweera 2001-11-07 3:24 ` Michael H. Warfield 2001-11-07 4:06 ` David Lang 2 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Mike Fedyk @ 2001-11-07 3:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anuradha Ratnaweera; +Cc: Robert Love, torvalds, Terminator, linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) 2001-11-07 3:17 ` Mike Fedyk @ 2001-11-07 3:27 ` Anuradha Ratnaweera 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Anuradha Ratnaweera @ 2001-11-07 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anuradha Ratnaweera, Robert Love, torvalds, Terminator, linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) 2001-11-07 3:13 ` Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) Anuradha Ratnaweera 2001-11-07 3:17 ` Mike Fedyk @ 2001-11-07 3:24 ` Michael H. Warfield 2001-11-07 4:06 ` David Lang 2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Michael H. Warfield @ 2001-11-07 3:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anuradha Ratnaweera Cc: Robert Love, torvalds, Mike Fedyk, Terminator, linux-kernel 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! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) 2001-11-07 3:13 ` Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) Anuradha Ratnaweera 2001-11-07 3:17 ` Mike Fedyk 2001-11-07 3:24 ` Michael H. Warfield @ 2001-11-07 4:06 ` David Lang 2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: David Lang @ 2001-11-07 4:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anuradha Ratnaweera Cc: Robert Love, torvalds, Mike Fedyk, Terminator, linux-kernel 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/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-11-07 21:45 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-11-06 3:39 kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device Terminator 2001-11-06 3:43 ` Mike Fedyk 2001-11-06 4:02 ` Robert Love 2001-11-06 4:08 ` Mohammad A. Haque 2001-11-06 4:14 ` Robert Love 2001-11-06 4:29 ` Mike Fedyk 2001-11-07 12:13 ` Todd M. Roy 2001-11-07 20:49 ` Roeland Th. Jansen 2001-11-07 21:11 ` Mohammad A. Haque 2001-11-07 21:34 ` J Sloan 2001-11-07 11:58 ` rpjday 2001-11-07 21:44 ` J Sloan 2001-11-07 21:41 ` Roeland Th. Jansen 2001-11-07 21:40 ` Roeland Th. Jansen 2001-11-07 3:13 ` Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) Anuradha Ratnaweera 2001-11-07 3:17 ` Mike Fedyk 2001-11-07 3:27 ` Anuradha Ratnaweera 2001-11-07 3:24 ` Michael H. Warfield 2001-11-07 4:06 ` David Lang
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).