Sorry, that was a wrong .config file. Here is the right one, form
the amd64 box:
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-rc5-mm3
# Sat Mar 31 09:01:57 2007
#
CONFIG_X86_64=y
CONFIG_64BIT=y
CONFIG_X86=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL=y
Here is my .config
Sorry for the late reply, I have been on a holiday.
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-rc5-mm2
# Wed Mar 28 12:18:09 2007
#
CONFIG_X86_32=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME=y
CONFIG_CLOCKSOURCE_WATCHDOG=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS=y
Here is my .config
Sorry for the late reply, I have been on a holiday.
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-rc5-mm2
# Wed Mar 28 12:18:09 2007
#
CONFIG_X86_32=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME=y
CONFIG_CLOCKSOURCE_WATCHDOG=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS=y
Sorry, that was a wrong .config file. Here is the right one, form
the amd64 box:
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-rc5-mm3
# Sat Mar 31 09:01:57 2007
#
CONFIG_X86_64=y
CONFIG_64BIT=y
CONFIG_X86=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL=y
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:23:17PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I guess at this point the easy case is that we modify /sbin/kexec to
> >> support
> >> it. And the other bootloaders can come be upgraded if the feature is
> >> interesting
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:23:17PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess at this point the easy case is that we modify /sbin/kexec to
support
it. And the other bootloaders can come be upgraded if the feature is
interesting enough.
On i386,
Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I guess at this point the easy case is that we modify /sbin/kexec to support
>> it. And the other bootloaders can come be upgraded if the feature is
>> interesting enough.
>>
>> > On i386, somebody already found an interesting usage of
>
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:59:26PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:49:14PM +0200
> >
> > I used a working 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 tree, patched it up to 2.6.21-rc5-mm3
> > and applied your patch. I ended up with the .config
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:26:38AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Only advantage of CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START seems to be that one has got
> > capability to run the kernel from other addresses without modifying the
> > boot-loader. One can argue that
Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Only advantage of CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START seems to be that one has got
> capability to run the kernel from other addresses without modifying the
> boot-loader. One can argue that now people should use a relocatable kernel
> for such a feature. But for using
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:49:14PM +0200
>
> I used a working 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 tree, patched it up to 2.6.21-rc5-mm3
> and applied your patch. I ended up with the .config later in this email,
> and got this error:
>
> CC
From: Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 05:06:39PM +0530
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:17:45PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [..]
> > > + /*
> > > + * Make sure kernel is aligned to 2MB address. Catching it at compile
> > > + * time is better. Change your config file
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:17:45PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
> > + /*
> > +* Make sure kernel is aligned to 2MB address. Catching it at compile
> > +* time is better. Change your config file and compile the kernel
> > +* for a 2MB aligned address (CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START)
>
From: Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:11:59PM +0530
>
> How about attached patch?
>
> o X86_64 kernel should run from 2MB aligned address for two reasons.
> - Performance.
> - For relocatable kernels, page tables are updated based on difference
>
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 02:43:56AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:29:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:15:51 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman)
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Does anyone know
Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:29:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:15:51 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman)
> wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone know how to express the constraint of a 2M aligned number in
> Kconfig?
>>
>> Nope,
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:29:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:15:51 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman)
> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know how to express the constraint of a 2M aligned number in
> > Kconfig?
>
> Nope, but we could make CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START be in
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:29:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:15:51 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman)
wrote:
Does anyone know how to express the constraint of a 2M aligned number in
Kconfig?
Nope, but we could make CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START be in units of
Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:29:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:15:51 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman)
wrote:
Does anyone know how to express the constraint of a 2M aligned number in
Kconfig?
Nope, but we could make
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 02:43:56AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:29:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:15:51 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman)
wrote:
Does anyone know how to express the
From: Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:11:59PM +0530
How about attached patch?
o X86_64 kernel should run from 2MB aligned address for two reasons.
- Performance.
- For relocatable kernels, page tables are updated based on difference
between
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:17:45PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
+ /*
+* Make sure kernel is aligned to 2MB address. Catching it at compile
+* time is better. Change your config file and compile the kernel
+* for a 2MB aligned address (CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START)
+*/
From: Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 05:06:39PM +0530
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:17:45PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
+ /*
+ * Make sure kernel is aligned to 2MB address. Catching it at compile
+ * time is better. Change your config file and compile
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:49:14PM +0200
I used a working 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 tree, patched it up to 2.6.21-rc5-mm3
and applied your patch. I ended up with the .config later in this email,
and got this error:
CC arch/x86_64/kernel/head64.o
Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Only advantage of CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START seems to be that one has got
capability to run the kernel from other addresses without modifying the
boot-loader. One can argue that now people should use a relocatable kernel
for such a feature. But for using
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:26:38AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Only advantage of CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START seems to be that one has got
capability to run the kernel from other addresses without modifying the
boot-loader. One can argue that now people
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:59:26PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:49:14PM +0200
I used a working 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 tree, patched it up to 2.6.21-rc5-mm3
and applied your patch. I ended up with the .config later in this
Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess at this point the easy case is that we modify /sbin/kexec to support
it. And the other bootloaders can come be upgraded if the feature is
interesting enough.
On i386, somebody already found an interesting usage of
CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:15:51 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Does anyone know how to express the constraint of a 2M aligned number in
> Kconfig?
Nope, but we could make CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START be in units of 2MB, which
would be a bit hard to use.
Adding a BUILD_BUG_ON which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I had the same with this .config from 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 after running 'make
> oldconfig' and answering N to all new questions. Then, I tweaked some
> items, mostly to see if there was an 'align kernel' item in there
> somewhere. Diff between _working_ 2.6.21-rc5-mm3
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 12:53:03AM -0700
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:12:20 +0200 Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A new error for me:
> >
> > loading 2.6.21rc5mm3
> > Bios data check successful
> > Destination address not 2M aligned
> > --
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:12:20 +0200 Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> A new error for me:
>>
>> loading 2.6.21rc5mm3
>> Bios data check successful
>> Destination address not 2M aligned
>> -- System halted
>>
>>
>> This is using the same
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:12:20 +0200 Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A new error for me:
>
> loading 2.6.21rc5mm3
> Bios data check successful
> Destination address not 2M aligned
> -- System halted
>
>
> This is using the same lilo that loads 2.6.18rc5mm1 fine.
> x86-64
>
That's
A new error for me:
loading 2.6.21rc5mm3
Bios data check successful
Destination address not 2M aligned
-- System halted
This is using the same lilo that loads 2.6.18rc5mm1 fine.
x86-64
Helge Hafting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
A new error for me:
loading 2.6.21rc5mm3
Bios data check successful
Destination address not 2M aligned
-- System halted
This is using the same lilo that loads 2.6.18rc5mm1 fine.
x86-64
Helge Hafting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:12:20 +0200 Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A new error for me:
loading 2.6.21rc5mm3
Bios data check successful
Destination address not 2M aligned
-- System halted
This is using the same lilo that loads 2.6.18rc5mm1 fine.
x86-64
That's new. Does
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:12:20 +0200 Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A new error for me:
loading 2.6.21rc5mm3
Bios data check successful
Destination address not 2M aligned
-- System halted
This is using the same lilo that loads
From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 12:53:03AM -0700
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:12:20 +0200 Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A new error for me:
loading 2.6.21rc5mm3
Bios data check successful
Destination address not 2M aligned
-- System halted
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I had the same with this .config from 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 after running 'make
oldconfig' and answering N to all new questions. Then, I tweaked some
items, mostly to see if there was an 'align kernel' item in there
somewhere. Diff between _working_ 2.6.21-rc5-mm3 .config
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:15:51 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
Does anyone know how to express the constraint of a 2M aligned number in
Kconfig?
Nope, but we could make CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START be in units of 2MB, which
would be a bit hard to use.
Adding a BUILD_BUG_ON which
40 matches
Mail list logo
