kernel compile problem

mrwangxc · 2005-06-07 14:36:32

in arch 0.7, when i compile redhat hat kernel 2.4.21-27.0.1.EL, gcc 3.4.3 complains:
gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/data/linux-2.4.21-27.0.1.EL/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O3 -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -Wno-unused -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -freorder-blocks -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=pentium4 -DKBUILD_BASENAME=main -c -o init/main.o init/main.c
In file included from /data/linux-2.4.21-27.0.1.EL/include/linux/sched.h:24,
from /data/linux-2.4.21-27.0.1.EL/include/linux/mm.h:22,
from /data/linux-2.4.21-27.0.1.EL/include/linux/slab.h:14,
from /data/linux-2.4.21-27.0.1.EL/include/linux/proc_fs.h:5,
from init/main.c:15:
/data/linux-2.4.21-27.0.1.EL/include/linux/smp.h:31: error: conflicting types for 'smp_send_reschedule'
/data/linux-2.4.21-27.0.1.EL/include/asm/smp.h:41: error: previous declaration of 'smp_send_reschedule' was here
/data/linux-2.4.21-27.0.1.EL/include/linux/smp.h:31: error: conflicting types for 'smp_send_reschedule'
/data/linux-2.4.21-27.0.1.EL/include/asm/smp.h:41: error: previous declaration of 'smp_send_reschedule' was here
In file included from /data/linux-2.4.21-27.0.1.EL/include/linux/unistd.h:9,
from init/main.c:17:
/data/linux-2.4.21-27.0.1.EL/include/asm/unistd.h:382: warning: conflicting types for built-in function '_exit'
make: *** [init/main.o] Error 1

gcc info:
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.3/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.4.3/configure --prefix=/usr --enable-shared --enable-languages=c,c++,objc --enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.4.3

but when i compile the kernel src in redhat as 3 with the same kernel config , compiling options and kernel compiling procedure, everything is ok. the gcc info:
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/3.2.3/specs
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --disable-checking --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --host=i386-redhat-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-20)

what's the problem ? it's something between gcc 3.4 and kernel 2.4.21 (or redhat ?) ? how to resolve this problem ?

phrakture · 2005-06-07 14:39:37

a) why are you compiling redhat's kernel on arch
b) there's so many discrepancies it's not funny - glibc version, gcc version, etc

seeing as the error is from "built in function _exit" I have a feeling it's a libc clash

mrwangxc · 2005-06-07 14:50:06

i need some features such as 4G kernel space for my application which as far as i known is provided in kernel 2.6-mm patch. furthermore, maybe the redhat kernel is more stable.

phrakture wrote:

a) why are you compiling redhat's kernel on arch
b) there's so many discrepancies it's not funny - glibc version, gcc version, etc
seeing as the error is from "built in function _exit" I have a feeling it's a libc clash

when turn to arch's gcc 3.3 (pacman -U gcc-3.3.xx-pkg.tar.gz), everything is ok. the glibc is the original in arch 0.7. so i think the problem is about gcc 3.4 and kernel 2.4.21

phrakture · 2005-06-07 15:15:42

mrwangxc wrote:

i need some features such as 4G kernel space for my application which as far as i known is provided in kernel 2.6-mm patch. furthermore, maybe the redhat kernel is more stable.

pacman -S kernel26mm

mrwangxc · 2005-06-07 15:59:09

phrakture wrote:

mrwangxc wrote:
i need some features such as 4G kernel space for my application which as far as i known is provided in kernel 2.6-mm patch. furthermore, maybe the redhat kernel is more stable.
pacman -S kernel26mm

er, we care about stability and network performance, and it's reported that 2.6 is not so stable as 2.4, some reports said 2.6's network performance is inferior to that of 2.4.
one year later, maybe we'll turn to 2.6.

phrakture · 2005-06-07 16:02:54

Well, in that case I'd suggest you check out abs and build the 2.4 kernel with the 4G stuff on, I think using a redhat patched kernel might not be the greatest thing to do under a non-RH install... but there shouldn't be any issues really... *shrug*

mrwangxc · 2005-06-07 16:19:16

phrakture wrote:

Well, in that case I'd suggest you check out abs and build the 2.4 kernel with the 4G stuff on, I think using a redhat patched kernel might not be the greatest thing to do under a non-RH install... but there shouldn't be any issues really... *shrug*

the question is where can i find such a patch for the latest 2.4 kernel ?
i have tried on google, but all are about 2.6 patch
if found any, i would like to try

iphitus · 2005-06-08 11:13:04

What do you mean by 4gb?

Do you mean support for 4gb of ram? This has been included in 2.6 kernel for a long while.

Secondly, 2.6 is stable and fine, its on my server, and it's uptime is 59 days now and its never been rebooted since i installed arch.

you're at more of a risk running an older kernel like the 2.4.21 you're trying to use. It would lack multiple security patches and bugfixes. If you must run 2.4, update.

iphitus.

mrwangxc · 2005-06-08 12:05:53

iphitus wrote:

What do you mean by 4gb?
Do you mean support for 4gb of ram? This has been included in 2.6 kernel for a long while.
Secondly, 2.6 is stable and fine, its on my server, and it's uptime is 59 days now and its never been rebooted since i installed arch.
you're at more of a risk running an older kernel like the 2.4.21 you're trying to use. It would lack multiple security patches and bugfixes. If you must run 2.4, update.
iphitus.

i mean 4GB kernel space support. it's absent in current standard 2.4 kernels. i just can't find the proper mm patch for 2.4 kernel.
as for kernel 2.6, i would like to wait one more year.
what do you think of redhat as 3 u 4 kernel 2.4.21 ? i think it's suitable for our requirements.

deficite · 2005-06-08 21:10:18

Please don't do this. I think you'll find a lot more gratification in just upgrading to 2.6 then to remain using 2.4. 2.6 is pretty stable now, so I don't really think there is much reason to use 2.4. Even kernel.org is using 2.6 and look at the machines they're running and how much load is put on them.

jnengland77 · 2005-06-09 00:10:50

hmmm if you need the patch Con Kolivas has a patch... idk if this is the exact need.

1g lowmem?
Many machines now have exactly 1Gb ram and the standard memory split on i386 does not allow you to use more than 896Mb ram without enabling high memory for at least 4Gb. The problem is that this incurs an overhead whereas we can simply change this split with this patch to allow i386 architectures to use up to 1Gb ram without enabling highmem. This is configurable if HIGHMEM is disabled.

I also don't know if his old patches have the patch or if the current will work on the 2.4 kernel..
Just looked around and found the 2.4 are now Ick patchset and i don't see that... CK does have a server patch... If anything just get the 2.6 CK server patchset... 2.6 is stable, but how am I to say I've only used 2.6... Go with 2.6 ck server.
websites: CK patchset 2.6
ICK 2.4 patchset

mrwangxc · 2005-06-09 14:13:15

jnengland77 wrote:

hmmm if you need the patch Con Kolivas has a patch... idk if this is the exact need.
1g lowmem?
Many machines now have exactly 1Gb ram and the standard memory split on i386 does not allow you to use more than 896Mb ram without enabling high memory for at least 4Gb. The problem is that this incurs an overhead whereas we can simply change this split with this patch to allow i386 architectures to use up to 1Gb ram without enabling highmem. This is configurable if HIGHMEM is disabled.
I also don't know if his old patches have the patch or if the current will work on the 2.4 kernel..
Just looked around and found the 2.4 are now Ick patchset and i don't see that... CK does have a server patch... If anything just get the 2.6 CK server patchset... 2.6 is stable, but how am I to say I've only used 2.6... Go with 2.6 ck server.
websites: CK patchset 2.6
ICK 2.4 patchset

i really want a huge kernel space, and i can't find the 4G kernel space vm patch for 2.4 at these links
thanks anyway

jerem · 2005-06-09 15:56:52

Don't stick with old 2.4 kernel.

And also know that 2.6 performance(network in particular) is ABSOLUTELY SUPERIOR to 2.4 and has all the options you want by default...

Even Debian offers the 2.6.8 kernel in its stable branch...
I've heard of servers being up for more than one year on a 2.6 kernel...

And if stability and performance is what you absolutely want, I don't know why you look for linux, go BSD !

Yahoo and Google main servers are BSD...

Finally, don't believe whatever you read.

P.S. : if you stick with 2.6, try -ck-server patch.

codergeek42 · 2005-06-09 17:04:06

Not to be rude, but shouldn't this be in Kernel/Hardware Issues?

Dusty · 2005-06-09 17:07:57

jerem wrote:

Even Debian offers the 2.6.8 kernel in its stable branch...

rofl! "Even" Debian...

Dusty

Arch Linux

#1 2005-06-07 14:36:32

kernel compile problem

#2 2005-06-07 14:39:37

Re: kernel compile problem

#3 2005-06-07 14:50:06

Re: kernel compile problem

#4 2005-06-07 15:15:42

Re: kernel compile problem

#5 2005-06-07 15:59:09

Re: kernel compile problem

#6 2005-06-07 16:02:54

Re: kernel compile problem

#7 2005-06-07 16:19:16

Re: kernel compile problem

#8 2005-06-08 11:13:04

Re: kernel compile problem

#9 2005-06-08 12:05:53

Re: kernel compile problem

#10 2005-06-08 21:10:18

Re: kernel compile problem

#11 2005-06-09 00:10:50

Re: kernel compile problem

#12 2005-06-09 14:13:15

Re: kernel compile problem

#13 2005-06-09 15:56:52

Re: kernel compile problem

#14 2005-06-09 17:04:06

Re: kernel compile problem

#15 2005-06-09 17:07:57

Re: kernel compile problem

Board footer