lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.38-rc1 doesn't boot
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 17:09 +0800, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * H. Peter Anvin <h.peter.anvin@intel.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On 01/19/2011 12:12 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
    > > > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 15:49 +0800, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
    > > >> On 2011.01.19 at 08:39 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
    > > >>> On 2011.01.18 at 15:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > >>>>
    > > >>>> And as usual, report any regressions to the lists and the appropriate
    > > >>>> authorities.
    > > >>>
    > > >>> Unfortunately 2.6.38-rc1 doesn't even boot on my machine (amd64).
    > > >>> This is caused by 86b1e8dd83cbb0f:
    > > >>> x86: Make relocatable kernel work with new binutils
    > > >>>
    > > >>> Reverting the commit solves the problem.
    > > >>
    > > >> I'm running the latest binutils:
    > > >> GNU ld (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.21.51.0.5.20110104
    > > > Hmm, reproduce it here with binutils-2.21.51.0.6-20110118
    > > > but not with GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.20.51-system.20100908
    > > > I got this in system.map: ffffffff03514880 D jiffies_64, which looks
    > > > wrong.
    > > > looks binutils changed something again.
    > > > Have no idea, CC Lu Hongjiu.
    > > >
    > >
    > > Either way... the whole jiffies vs jiffies_64 thing is kind of
    > > ridiculous. We should be able to do it in a completely
    > > architecture-generic way by either making it a union(!) (with "jiffies"
    > > and "jiffies_64" presumably would be #defines, or we do a global replace
    > > across the tree), moving the variable declaration itself to a .S file
    > > (which would only have data components and therefore would be
    > > arch-generic) or doing something like the attached (untested since it is
    > > 1 am here) patch.
    > >
    > > This should let us get rid of the hacks in *all* the architectures, not
    > > just x86.
    >
    > Ok - until it's resolved i'll queue up a revert - a known build failure is preferred
    > to a boot regression.
    it's not a build failure, without it, my i386 kernel can't boot
    actually.

    Thanks,
    Shaohua



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-01-20 03:11    [W:0.044 / U:187.868 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site