Linux-Development-Sys Digest #4, Volume #7 Wed, 28 Jul 99 16:14:11 EDT
Contents:
Unresolved symbols in module... ("Alex Abreu")
Re: problems with two network cards. Fundamental limitation? (Steve Hier)
Re: drives mount in linux and dos-like OS's (Leonard Evens)
Re: Writing shared libraries (Kevin Woodward)
announcement, OS-edge mailing list (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
modem programming (Dean Parsons)
Re: Writing shared libraries (Paul D. Smith)
Re: dual Celeron MB blows up constantly! (Shane Owenby)
Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION (Jan Andres)
Re: help on gcc (Jan Andres)
Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION (Jan Andres)
Pre-emptiveness of Linux (Viraj Alankar)
Re: Unresolved symbols in module... (Allen Ashley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alex Abreu" <simonet@(spam? no thanx)bhnet.com.br>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Unresolved symbols in module...
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:54:32 -0500
After compiling my kernel and rebooting it, I got the message "Unresolved
symbols in module ..." for a lot of modules. I did everything by the book:
make mrproper ; make menuconfig ; make dep ; make clean ; make boot ; make
modules ; make modules_install
I am using RH 4.2 w/ kernel 2.0.36 and libc 5.4.46 and the message also
shows when I issue "depmod -a" when logged as root.
In the kernel config menu, I chose not to have version information on the
modules. When I compiled with version information and rebooted, I got
several messages that there was a version mismatch between the modules and
the current kernel, although everything was built on the same run.
How can I solve the "Unresolved symbols ...." problem?
Thanks.
Alex
------------------------------
From: Steve Hier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: problems with two network cards. Fundamental limitation?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:02:17 -0700
Chetan Ahuja wrote:
>
> Tony Gale ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : In article <7nmcu2$l3d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chetan Ahuja) writes:
>
> : > I have made a router out of a pentium 60 using the LRP (Linux Router
> : > Project based on 2.0.36 modified a little) distro. It has two network
> : > cards ( One Tulip based and the other via-rhine based) One talks to my
> : > internal network and the other one talks to the external world. Now,
> : > the external connection ( through xDSL) goes dead sometimes due to
> : > problems beyond my control. The problem is, when that happens, I can't
> : > even telnet into the box through it's internal interface. I can still
> : > ping the box though. But no telnet. If a kernel hacker is reading
> : > this, could you tell me where exactly is the problem. Is it a hardware
> : > driver level problem, TCP/IP stack problem, or even a tcp-wrapper
> : > problem ( all servers on the router box are invoked through inetd). My
> : > guess is that the external connection is blocking on a read/write and
> : > that somehow blocks the internal connection too.. ( or is it supposed
> : > to be obvious and I am just exposing the limits of my knowledge here)
> : > Is there a fix for it...(or has it been taken care in later kernels in
> : > 2.2 series ) or is it a fundamental limitation of the kernel
> : > architecture ??? If you can point me to a source file in the kernel tree,
> : > or other sources of information, that will be good too...
> : >
>
> : Is, by any chance, your DNS server on the side that goes down?
>
> : -tony
> : --
>
> Yes. But that shouldn't affect anything. I am telnetting directly
> to the IP of the internal interface and hence no IP resolution is necessary.
> And as I said, I can ping that (internal) IP alright.... just no telnet or
> any other deamon connection.
>
> Chetan
>
>
> --
Ah -- but if your router is trying to do a reverse lookup for the IP
that is connecting, you have to wait for that to time out -- which I've
seen take up to 5 minutes on some systems.
Question: When it does "dead" and you telnet, do you get a
non-responsive
connection? (as opposed to connection refused / etc.)
------------------------------
From: Leonard Evens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: drives mount in linux and dos-like OS's
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:13:59 -0500
YamYam wrote:
>
> Hi...
> I want to ask about the difference in mount/umount the drivers in
> linux 'is it necessary, if so why?' and the easy one in Dos-like
> OS's 'e.g., Win95, Win98, ...'.
> I found it very complicated for the Dos-like users to switch to linux at
> this point. Is there any suggessions to make easy for that user, such as
> writing a script to mount/umount the floppy and cdrom?
>
> - markhi1.
>
> ------------------ Posted via SearchLinux ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
Under RH6.0, with the gnome desktop environment, you can click
on an icon and do everything you want. First you should use
linuxconf to specify that the floppy is user mountable. Then
any user created after that will have a floppy icon on the desktop.
For an existing user, one can create a link in the gnome desktop
(if one is at the top level in one's home directory) by
cd .gnome-desktop
ln -s /mnt/floppy
The icon will then appear on the desktop. Double clicking it
will mount it and bring up the file manager for the floppy.
One can do exactly the same thing for the cdrom. Or you can
right click and mount/umount it.
If the icon isn't right, right clicking and choosing properties
will allow you to change it.
However, following the above instructions does require a minimum
of Unix/Linux knowledge. Gnome or KDE desktops make a lot of
things simpler, but Linux is not Windows, and one should expect
to put in some effort to learn hou to use it. Windows requires
at least as much effort to learn how to use. What misleads you
is that you started with DOS and worked your way up their
ladder, so you are now familiar with it. I use primarily
Linux, but I do have to use Windows for some purposes. I
find it generally less flexible to use than Linux; sometimes
the only way I can find to do something in my Windows partition
is to look at it from Linux.
--
Leonard Evens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Woodward)
Subject: Re: Writing shared libraries
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:28:01 GMT
On 27 Jul 1999 12:19:32 -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
>%% [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Woodward) writes:
>
> kw> Thanks. From that I assume libx.a is a.out format and libx.so is
> kw> for ELF?
>
>No. The .a is a static library, in case you want to link statically
>(otherwise you don't need it), and the .so is a shared library.
Thanks for clear that up. Are there any reasons for using static libs
over shared libs. I've noticed that a lot of software comes with
static libs...
Kevin.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: announcement, OS-edge mailing list
Date: 28 Jul 1999 17:43:13 GMT
OS-edge
http://www.egroups.com/group/os-edge/
The OS-edge list is for discussion of recent trends and
the latest advances in operating system design and construction.
Discussion topics are not focused on a particular OS but in
considering new improvements and innovations in any operating
systems known or familiar to subscribers, including commercial,
experimental, and research-oriented. Some but not all of the OSes
that are specifically of interest:
- Unix/Linux
- Windows 95/98/2000
- Windows NT
- Macintosh
- Mach
- Be
- etc.
The discussion will ideally focus on the task of creating a
fundamentally new OS that combines all the best features of all
existing OSes while minimizing the undesirable ones. Advocacy of a
particular OS in its current form as inherently superior in all aspects
is discouraged.
Particularly sought are up-to-date reports of the progress made
and directions taken in different active OS development efforts.
OS features and attributes of particular interest are:
- easily installed/maintained
- fault tolerant
- uniform, cohesive, universal, e.g. entirely object oriented
- "user conscientious", i.e. usable by the nontechnical
- open source/noncommercial
- collaboratively developed
- high performance/optimized
- tightly standardized
- secure, e.g. virus proof
- high integrity/reliability, i.e. incorruptable
- streamlined abstraction, e.g. user insulated from low level elements
- hotfixing, plug-n-play, etc.
- upgradeable/backward compatible
- device independent
Summaries of poster's opinions are preferred to short responses
and message-quoting. The moderator is responsible for guiding
the discussion, and complaints about the contents or traffic of
the list should never be posted but instead be forwarded to the
moderator who will collect, validate, and summarize them.
The moderator is V.Z.Nuri, with B.S. in software engineering
who has used the internet since 1989 and started
programming at age ~10 on a Commodore PET. V.N.
has long contributed to internet discussion groups and forums. V.N.
has used Atari, Apple II, DOS, Macintosh, Windows, and Unix all
very extensively. V.N. has used Linux since ~1996 and has
closely watched its development. V.N. is the author of the
Tao operating system requirements document calling for a
fundamentally new system which can be found at
http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/tao.html
TO SUBSCRIBE, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"in theory, there's no difference [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between theory and practice, mad genius research lab
but in practice there is!" http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/
------------------------------
From: Dean Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: modem programming
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:20:17 -0230
Hello.
I am running linux ( redhat 6.0 ).
I am going to attempt to try a termial program.
I want to be able to
dial out from this program using
my modem and login in to a dial up connection.
I realize that programming for something like a
modem is very Operating
System
dependent. I am running linux, and i know that
every thing is treated
like
a file under this platform.
I am writting this program in C.
So far i open my modem device ( /dev/ttyS0 )
but "fopen()" returns
NULL.
I am not sure if using fopen() is the right way
to go first.. is there
anything that
i should know, set, open first before the
fopen() attempt??
Can you give me some source code of how to
access my modem? or just some
of the commands
i need to use the modem?
I know that i need to use ATZ for
initialization of the modem and ATDT
for dialing...
Any ideas?
Dean
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul D. Smith)
Subject: Re: Writing shared libraries
Date: 28 Jul 1999 13:52:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
%% [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Woodward) writes:
>> No. The .a is a static library, in case you want to link statically
>> (otherwise you don't need it), and the .so is a shared library.
kw> Thanks for clear that up. Are there any reasons for using static
kw> libs over shared libs.
Sure. At least these reasons:
1) There is runtime overhead associated with shared libs; your apps
will run slightly slower than with static (all other things being
equal).
2) Unless you ship the shared lib with your app, there may be version
differences at the user's side which will cause your app to fail;
maybe they don't have the same version of the shared lib that you
do. Static libs avoid all this by incorporating the code into the
app, so it all comes in one piece.
--
===============================================================================
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Management Development
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
===============================================================================
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shane Owenby)
Subject: Re: dual Celeron MB blows up constantly!
Date: 28 Jul 1999 17:22:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.os.linux.development.system, Brian Gilman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Hello all!
>> Well, I go my abit dual celeron board today and have had nothing but
>>problems with different kernels.....I wanted to use this board to learn
>>about smp and programming threads with smp but, it's just not stable
>>enough.....Sigh......Does anyone know what kernel version is considered
>>the most *stable* for smp? Thanks in advance!
Well I read all the responses to your post and just like everone else
I have been running 2.2.* on mymachine with little to no trouble from them.
Open this:
http://www.arstechnica.com/
Then search on celeron then read about waht Intel is doing to prevent
SMP Celeron machine...then research and see if by chance you got on with
the pin 14 problem :-0
Shane
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Andres)
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION
Date: 28 Jul 1999 18:22:47 GMT
In article <7nadt6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, david parsons wrote:
| In article <7m6qte$rqt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
| Todd Knarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >Scott Lanning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >> You don't have to buy something to own it. Linux is GPL'ed,
| >> okay, but Microsoft could produce a GPL'ed Linux, "enhance"
| >> it, then their bastardized form of Linux becomes standard.
| >
| >One problem: any mods to the kernel they make have to be put
| >under GPL and released in source form. That means that they can
| >be merged into any _other_ Linux distribution. Ditto for mods to
| >glibc or other GPL'd or LGPL'd libraries.
|
| I'm not Microsoft, but if I was I wouldn't touch gl*bc with a
| 10-foot pole; if MS was going to put out a Linux distribution and
| wanted it to be standard, writing their own C runtime library,
| promising not to fuck with the interfaces, and linking their
| applications against their libc would be a pretty compelling
| reason to use the MS distribution.
Right. And about kernel code, they'll write modules that make
binary-only modifications to the running kernel once they are loaded.
This will, of course, only work with their kernel binary, but no
problem, it was compiled from source that is completely available.
Of course this will be ugly, but that's Micro$oft's way of solving
problems, isn't it?
| >MS cannot tie their
| >mods into the core of a Linux system successfully without making
| >them usable on any non-MS Linux system at the same time,
|
| Thus giving all the other Linux distributions the unpleasant
| choice of (a) sticking with the non-MS runtimes and losing
| compatability with MS-tools or (b) redoing the published
| interfaces of libc to match the MS one and thus driving away
| all the ``death before Microsoft!'' people who infest the
| linux community like a semi-literate swarm of locusts.
And, of course, urging the users to decide if they want either
(1) Unix, GNU software, reliability, etc. or (2) M$ software.
Many people will choose (2). :-((
--
Jan Andres [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ham radio: DH2JAN
"Emacs is WYSIWYG. What you see is text, what you get is text." --Kaz
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Andres)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: help on gcc
Date: 28 Jul 1999 18:13:43 GMT
In article <7nmons$l2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter.vanHelden wrote:
| jievis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| : Hi, All:
| : When I try to compile a c files, I want gcc output a middle files in
| : which the expression is computed and enumeration is also computed, the
| : output files should be also .c format. So who can tell me the switcher?
| : Thanx in advance
|
| man gcc?
Or, maybe, info gcc. AFAIK, the man page is not maintained any more,
and the info page is more complete anyway.
--
Jan Andres [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ham radio: DH2JAN
"Emacs is WYSIWYG. What you see is text, what you get is text." --Kaz
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Andres)
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION
Date: 28 Jul 1999 18:23:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Stevenson wrote:
| Hi
|
| yea but knowing microsoft they will put there own kernel patch into it
| and make the kernel as big as it can possibly be
| and will also run 50% slower :)
Why is that funny? It will get reality.
| On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:02:11 +0200, Klamer Schutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >Samuel Brown wrote:
| >
| >> I had a someone tell me that Microsoft will sell their own linux
| >> distribution. Is this true?
| >
| >> It will have word and excel 2000 also.
| >
| >If that would provide perfect file compatibility with Office'97 then I
| >definitely would be interested in that distribution (most likely
| >only in these two programs -- or is there also a powerpoint? ;-)
| >
| >Klamer
| >
|
|
| --
| ---------------------------------------------
| Check Out: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/james/
| E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 12:10pm up 37 days, 13:13, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
--
Jan Andres [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ham radio: DH2JAN
"Emacs is WYSIWYG. What you see is text, what you get is text." --Kaz
------------------------------
From: Viraj Alankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pre-emptiveness of Linux
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:20:54 GMT
Hello,
I have a few questions on Linux which I believe has to do with
pre-emptiveness. However, I ask these questions because of my own
observations and admit that I do not know much about operating system
design. I do not mean to start any flame war or anything like that. I'm
just trying to get some information.
I've used Linux for a long time, and still do. One of my
colleagues believes that Linux still has alot more to accomplish before
it can compete with other commercial Unix'es like Solaris. Now of course
I disagreed. We did some benchmarking on a Dell 350 comparing compile
times of SSH with Solaris x86 and Linux (2.0.37 as well as 2.2.5) using
gcc. By far compiling was much quicker on Linux (by a minute or more).
He attributed this to Linux having a better filesystem.
Next we were going to install Oracle 8i on the Linux machine. We
un-tarred the 100+meg file. Then for some reason we needed to remove the
directory that was untarred. So 'rm -rf' and put in the background.
Next, while the rm was going, we tried to remove another big tar file in
the foreground. That paused for awhile, and then we tried CTRL-Z to put
it in the background. What is strange that at this point it took about
10-15 seconds for it to even accept the CTRL-Z! It was like the system
was waiting for the original rm to finish with something (system call?)
before being able to pre-empt this rm process. This was all done on the
console.
What's more, during all of this, the system is very slow. 'ps
aux' takes a few seconds to display, shell commands pause a bit too. Now
we had tried the exact same commands in Solaris x86 and the system was
very responsive. Now I'm wondering what is causing this slowdown? Is it
that the pre-emptiveness of the Linux kernel is not as efficient as
Solaris? I did the same tests on a FreeBSD 3.1 machine, and even though
it was less responsive than the Solaris machine, it did seem to respond
faster than Linux.
Maybe someone can shed the light here. I like Linux, but am I
right in saying this type of performance is not up to par with Solaris
or *BSD? Appreciate any comments.
Viraj.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allen Ashley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Unresolved symbols in module...
Date: 28 Jul 1999 18:39:11 GMT
"Alex Abreu" <simonet@(spam? no thanx)bhnet.com.br> writes:
>How can I solve the "Unresolved symbols ...." problem?
Delete all the modules that are giving you error messages,
you don't need them with the kernel you compiled. You
can do:
depmod -a >>delfiles
then edit delfiles to change the lines to a series of rm statements,
then execute the file to delete all the unused modules.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
