Can you be more specific on what is considered a "late 1.4.X" version?
On Wednesday 25 April 2007 5:25:38 pm Nathaniel Rutman wrote: > There should actually not be any difference between the patches between > a late 1.4.X and 1.6 -- we're trying to keep the kernel patches in > sync. So it's likely that you can just use a 1.4.x-patched kernel you > already have working, and build 1.6 against it. > > Makia Minich wrote: > > So, I've been charged with testing 1.6 (well, 1.5.97) with the Cray XT3, > > but I seem to be running into a problem. Utilizing lustre 1.4.7 based > > patches, I can successfully build and run my own kernel outside of the > > official Cray build process (if this seems like a trivial sentence, you > > don't have the pleasure of using an XT3). The problem is when I go back > > and utilize the lustre 1.5.97 patch set and build a kernel. It boots > > just fine, but the ethernet devices (e1000 based) do not behave (for > > instance, I can ping the node just fine, and it can mount NFS mounts just > > fine, but if I attempt to access those NFS mounts the process will hang > > indefinitely). > > > > So, with this, I'm about to start the journey of looking through the > > 1.5.97 patches to see what might be giving me grief, but I was hoping > > that someone smarter than I might have some insight on some things to > > try. > > > > Thanks... -- Makia Minich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> National Center for Computation Science Oak Ridge National Laboratory Phone: 865.574.7460 --*-- Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can - John Lennon _______________________________________________ Lustre-devel mailing list Lustre-devel@clusterfs.com https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
