Bernd Schubert wrote: > > Yeah, this is what I immediately thought when I saw your trace. The kernel > developer somehow manage to change the interface to the cache functions > on each kernel version (though not during the last digit subversions) > The trace lets me thing these functions have been called with the wrong > arguments. However, lustre already has wrapper functions for this and > I guess the configure script did something wrong this time. > Unless the lustre developers step in, I will try to find some time > tomorrow or on Thursday to check what's wrong.
Well, thank you very much. Have somebody else tried 2.6.22 and lustre? Bye, tamas _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
