On 02/01/2010 12:42 AM, Erez Zilber wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Rakesh Ranjan<[email protected]> wrote:
On 01/31/2010 08:04 PM, Erez Zilber wrote:
Hi,
When I build open-iscsi on CentOS 5.4, I get the following errors:
In file included from
/home1/erez.zilber/work/open-source/open-iscsi/kernel/scsi_transport_iscsi.h:30,
from
/home1/erez.zilber/work/open-source/open-iscsi/kernel/scsi_transport_iscsi.c:30:
/home1/erez.zilber/work/open-source/open-iscsi/kernel/open_iscsi_compat.h:154:
error: static declaration of ‘kernel_getsockname’ follows non-static
declaration
include/linux/net.h:221: error: previous declaration of
‘kernel_getsockname’ was here
/home1/erez.zilber/work/open-source/open-iscsi/kernel/open_iscsi_compat.h:160:
error: static declaration of ‘kernel_getpeername’ follows non-static
declaration
include/linux/net.h:223: error: previous declaration of
‘kernel_getpeername’ was here
This is probably because of the following code in 2.6.14-23_compat.patch:
+#ifdef RHEL_RELEASE_CODE
+#if (RHEL_RELEASE_CODE< RHEL_RELEASE_VERSION(5, 4))
+#define RHELC1 1
+#endif
+#endif
and
+#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE< KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,19)) \
+&& !(defined RHELC1)
+static inline int kernel_getsockname(struct socket *sock, struct
sockaddr *addr,
+ int *addrlen)
+{
+ return sock->ops->getname(sock, addr, addrlen, 0);
+}
+
+static inline int kernel_getpeername(struct socket *sock, struct
sockaddr *addr,
+ int *addrlen)
+{
+ return sock->ops->getname(sock, addr, addrlen, 1);
+}
+#endif
What does RHELC1 mean? What does it have to do with versions older than
5.4?
Hi Erez,
RHELC1 is for RHEL5.{1,3}, IIRC it defines some of the missing symbols from
RHEL5.{1,3} and apart from that it also provides some build support for
older SLES. About the above error's it seems we need to put a check for
CentOS versions.
Regards
Rakesh Ranjan
Hi Rakesh,
CentOS& RHEL have the same kernels. What I'm asking is: what is the
difference between RHEL 5.3 and 5.4 (or: what is the difference
between CentOS 5.3 and 5.4). It looks like getsockname& getpeername
exist in both 5.3& 5.4. Do you think that 5.4 should be handled
differently?
I do not think so. I think what happened is that only 5.3 was out when
Rakesh made the patch, so it was just a dumb case of where I did not
update the patch when 5.4 came up.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"open-iscsi" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi?hl=en.
