After installing kernel-2.6.7-1.441 on my opteron, I'm having an odd boot problem. If I boot up with the "quiet" kernel parameter, my boot will hang when starting usb. If I don't, it won't.. boots just fine. Any thoughts?
Also.. did something change with the keyboard handler? .. I have to really type fast at the console now, there is almost no delay before it starts repeating keys.
-- Marshall
I just noticed that my clock is running double time too... .. when I say clock, I mean the actual time.. it shows 2 seconds passing for every 1. I'm starting to wonder if something else is going on, I'll try an older kernel.
-- Marshall
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 08:35, Marshall Lewis wrote:
After installing kernel-2.6.7-1.441 on my opteron, I'm having an odd boot problem. If I boot up with the "quiet" kernel parameter, my boot will hang when starting usb. If I don't, it won't.. boots just fine. Any thoughts?
Also.. did something change with the keyboard handler? .. I have to really type fast at the console now, there is almost no delay before it starts repeating keys.
-- Marshall
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 14:22, Marshall Lewis wrote:
I just noticed that my clock is running double time too... .. when I say clock, I mean the actual time.. it shows 2 seconds passing for every
- I'm starting to wonder if something else is going on, I'll try an
older kernel.
or just try a newer one; 441 is known buggy in this respect, 448 is fixed. (should be in rawhide, is already at http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/2.6/ )
Ah ok : ) .. I had just installed the kernel yesterday, didn't realize there was a newer one already. Thanks.
-- Marshall
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 08:27, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 14:22, Marshall Lewis wrote:
I just noticed that my clock is running double time too... .. when I say clock, I mean the actual time.. it shows 2 seconds passing for every
- I'm starting to wonder if something else is going on, I'll try an
older kernel.
or just try a newer one; 441 is known buggy in this respect, 448 is fixed. (should be in rawhide, is already at http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/2.6/ )
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
Hate to be a pest, but where are the kernel-sourcecode packages? I tried rawhide, but it doesn't look like it's picked it up yet.. maybe download.fedora.redhat.com, but it's refusing connections at the moement : )
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 08:27, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 14:22, Marshall Lewis wrote:
I just noticed that my clock is running double time too... .. when I say clock, I mean the actual time.. it shows 2 seconds passing for every
- I'm starting to wonder if something else is going on, I'll try an
older kernel.
or just try a newer one; 441 is known buggy in this respect, 448 is fixed. (should be in rawhide, is already at http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/2.6/ )
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:04:47AM -0400, Marshall Lewis wrote:
Hate to be a pest, but where are the kernel-sourcecode packages? I tried rawhide, but it doesn't look like it's picked it up yet.. maybe download.fedora.redhat.com, but it's refusing connections at the moement
we're phasing those out in favor of documenting how to use rpmbuild -bp on the .src.rpm; it's a bit silly to ship the same stuff twice really...
Makes sense.. I'll give that a try then thanks.
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 08:46, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:04:47AM -0400, Marshall Lewis wrote:
Hate to be a pest, but where are the kernel-sourcecode packages? I tried rawhide, but it doesn't look like it's picked it up yet.. maybe download.fedora.redhat.com, but it's refusing connections at the moement
we're phasing those out in favor of documenting how to use rpmbuild -bp on the .src.rpm; it's a bit silly to ship the same stuff twice really...
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:46:22PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:04:47AM -0400, Marshall Lewis wrote:
Hate to be a pest, but where are the kernel-sourcecode packages? I tried rawhide, but it doesn't look like it's picked it up yet.. maybe download.fedora.redhat.com, but it's refusing connections at the moement
we're phasing those out in favor of documenting how to use rpmbuild -bp on the .src.rpm; it's a bit silly to ship the same stuff twice really...
Hm, at least in the past these two were not precisely the same although the bulk, clearly, was identical. In ...<arch>.rpm there were various bits-and-pieces build specific - like versioned symbols. A number of external modules have packaging which depend on that and it simple to tell end user "run 'rpmbuild --rebuild <this_package>.src.rpm' and you will end up with modules for your current kernel". It is more complicated in the case of src.rpm and there is no way to check automatically that 'rpmbuild -bp ...' was performed and on what and even if a relevant src.rpm is around. One can querry rpm otherwise. So from POV of an end-user this is not that benign change as it looks in the first glance and we hear all the time "disk space is cheap" when complaining about some bulk monsters. From some postings it looks like that this change will spell serious trouble even for some participants of this list.
OTOH resigning from src.rpm for a kernel is obviously not an option.
Michal
we're phasing those out in favor of documenting how to use rpmbuild -bp on the .src.rpm; it's a bit silly to ship the same stuff twice really...
Hm, at least in the past these two were not precisely the same although the bulk, clearly, was identical. In ...<arch>.rpm there were various bits-and-pieces build specific - like versioned symbols.
that is not the case for any of the 2.6 rpms I did since the early days and in FC2.
So from POV of an end-user this is not that benign change as it looks in the first glance and we hear all the time "disk space is cheap" when complaining about some bulk monsters. From some postings it looks like that this change will spell serious trouble even for some participants of this list.
in FC2 you ALREADY cannot use kernel-sourcecode for building modules against so the change is a lot smaller than you make it out to be.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
in FC2 you ALREADY cannot use kernel-sourcecode for building modules against so the change is a lot smaller than you make it out to be.
Eh? The funny thing is that I did with FC2 and results even worked. :-) It even surprised me that this went so smoothly when I expected hiccups. It does not mean that hiccups would not show up elsewhere but "cannot" seems to be a bit strong.
To make that concrete attached are a spec file and two, referenced in it, pieces for a support of an AC97 "windmodem" built-in into my wife's Acer TM230 laptop. The required rest can be had from ftp://ftp.smlink.com/linux/unsupported/slmodem.2.9.7.tar.gz No problems with building kernel modules for that on FC2 just by rebuilding this rpm.
Michal
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
in FC2 you ALREADY cannot use kernel-sourcecode for building modules against so the change is a lot smaller than you make it out to be.
Eh? The funny thing is that I did with FC2 and results even worked. :-)
%{_make_cmd} KERNEL_DIR=/lib/modules/%{kname}/build drivers %if %{?kmods_only:0}%{!?kmods_only:1} %{_make_cmd} KERNEL_DIR=/lib/modules/%{kname}/build
... and this is where you make a wrong assumption; these headers you use are *NOT* part of kernel-sourcecode, so your nice rpm doesn't use kernel-sourcecode..... :)
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 06:29:47PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
in FC2 you ALREADY cannot use kernel-sourcecode for building modules against so the change is a lot smaller than you make it out to be.
Eh? The funny thing is that I did with FC2 and results even worked. :-)
%{_make_cmd} KERNEL_DIR=/lib/modules/%{kname}/build drivers %if %{?kmods_only:0}%{!?kmods_only:1} %{_make_cmd} KERNEL_DIR=/lib/modules/%{kname}/build
... and this is where you make a wrong assumption; these headers you use are *NOT* part of kernel-sourcecode, so your nice rpm doesn't use kernel-sourcecode..... :)
Indeed. /lib/modules/%{kname}/build is now a directory while it used to be a link in the past. I have to admit that I did not think over all implications yet. I took rpm which I was using before with 2.4 and it just worked. :-)
Michal
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
in FC2 you ALREADY cannot use kernel-sourcecode for building modules against so the change is a lot smaller than you make it out to be.
Eh? The funny thing is that I did with FC2 and results even worked. :-) It even surprised me that this went so smoothly when I expected hiccups. It does not mean that hiccups would not show up elsewhere but "cannot" seems to be a bit strong.
To make that concrete attached are a spec file and two, referenced in it, pieces for a support of an AC97 "windmodem" built-in into my wife's Acer TM230 laptop. The required rest can be had from ftp://ftp.smlink.com/linux/unsupported/slmodem.2.9.7.tar.gz No problems with building kernel modules for that on FC2 just by rebuilding this rpm.
Do you realize that slmodemd has the optional "ALSA mode", which allows you to use your modem with ALSA's snd-intel8x0m module and no additional kernel modules? You only run "slmodemd -a" and it works.
Warren Togami wtogami@redhat.com
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 07:20:45PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
Do you realize that slmodemd has the optional "ALSA mode", which allows you to use your modem with ALSA's snd-intel8x0m module and no additional kernel modules? You only run "slmodemd -a" and it works.
Yes, I do; although with extra modules works as well. The main point of this exercise was to see if specs for something with external modules will still work for FC2. I guess that I should re-work these specs to account for a presense of ALSA. May happen one day. I do not think that this modem was ever used for anything "real". :-)
Michal