On 10/19/2010 05:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]>
>> To: BLFS Support List <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Mon, Oct 18, 2010 10:59 pm
>> Subject: Re: cat /proc/version reports wrong info.
>
>> Nathan Coulson wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:36 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]>
>>>> To: BLFS Support List <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Mon, Oct 18, 2010 5:16 pm
>>>> Subject: Re: cat /proc/version reports wrong info.
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I've recently installed LFS6.7 using jhalfs. No probs. Building
>>> BLFS
>>>> now to own requirements,but I've discovered a problem with
>>>> /proc/version reporting wrong gcc version and compiled kernel.
>>>>
>>>> LFS 6.7 uses kernel 2.6.35.4
>>>>
>>>> 'cat /proc/version' gives:
>>>>
>>>> Linux version 2.6.27.10 (r...@cliffhanger) (gcc version 4.2.3) #1
>>>> PREEMPT Sun Jan 3 19:49:10 GMT 2010
>>>>
>>>> 'uname -r' gives:
>>>>
>>>> 2.6.27.10
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK 'uname' reads its info from /lib/modules/RELEASE, which is
>>>> 2.6.35.4
>>>> /proc/version is compiled into the kernel. It sounds like
>>>> you booted the wrong kernel.
>>> Thanks Bruce, but definitely not. I have two partitions, with the
>>> host(an older LFS)on one and LFS6.7 on the other. LFS6.7
>>> is booting the new kernel(2.6.35.4), but proc/version and uname both
>>> report it as the older kernel, 2.6.27.10.
>>>
>>> Have just reinstalled kernel to be sure, still reporting it wrongly.
>>>
>>>> LFS does not install a /lib/modules/RELEASE file. I've not heard of
>>>> that before.
>>> When I say RELEASE I mean the kernel version, i.e.
>>> /lib/modules/2.6.35.4. This is what 'uname' reads?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> MAC
>>
>
>> Right. See 'man 2 uname'
>
>> "This is a system call, and the operating system presumably knows its
>> name, release and version. It also knows what hardware it runs on."
>
>> Actually it uses the uname call to figure out which modules to use,
> not
>> the other way around.
>
>> linux-fan wrote:
>
>> You wil see a line such as:
>> lfs kernel: Inspecting /boot/System.map-2.6.33
>>
>> ... and that 2.6.33 is the kernel version that booted.
>> Assuming that you named System.map-($uname -r)
>
>> nope, it is read right from the kernel's version string. Only way to
>> get that, is by running that version of kernel.
>
> Which I am
>
> I know I'm booting the 2.6.35.4 kernel, but it's not being reported as
> such. This is affecting the module loading on the new system e.g.
>
> modprobe: FATAL: Could not load /lib/modules/2.6.27.10/modules.dep: No
> such file or directory - again the wrong kernel
>
> Surely the big question, is how, on a brand new system with its first
> kernel, did the listing in /proc/version get to be 2.6.27.10? I can go
> to it and see this. It seems to have inherited the kernel version
> from the old lfs host system i used. But how? As I said I used
> jhalfs
> for the install, but was forced to install the new kernel manually.
> How do i change this proc file - I know by booting the correct kernel!!
> This is crazy
>
> thanks to all
um...as the root user:
cd "${SOURCES}" &&
tar -xf linux-2.6.35.4.tar.bz2 &&
cd linux-2.6.35.4 &&
cp /boot/config-2.6.35.4 .config &&
yes | make oldconfig &&
make &&
make modules_install &&
cp arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/lfs-kernel-2.6.35.4 &&
cp System.map /boot/System-2.6.35.4
;-)
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
