Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

DJ Lucas wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: I don't see any of these references in sys/types.h, or am I missing something. Glibc-2.3.6. This may not be an issue at all, see below. Will let you know tomorrow if I have the time to complete xorg. Hello, just wanted to reply back so not to leave thi

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Are there significant disadvantages to using raw headers for glibc, and fedora headers for userland, like the nptl hint did? robert -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Matthew Burgess wrote: Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: BLFS is not the right place to work around libc bugs. Agreed. If someone could cook up a patch for glibc-2.3.6 I'd appreciate it. http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/kd.h.diff?cvsroot=glibc&r1=1.

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: BLFS is not the right place to work around libc bugs. Agreed. If someone could cook up a patch for glibc-2.3.6 I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

DJ Lucas wrote: Sorry for the noise. Thanks for taking a look. Oh, I also forgot about the original problem with sys/kd.h. Thanks for the reminder. Should this be fixed in LFS if continuing with glibc-2.3.6? Xorg is the only known (to me) issue and it's worked around in BLFS. BLFS is not

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Jim Gifford wrote: I don't see any of these references in sys/types.h, or am I missing something. Glibc-2.3.6. This may not be an issue at all, see below. Will let you know tomorrow if I have the time to complete xorg. --- Greg Schafer wrote: I'm not sure what you're

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

DJ Lucas wrote: > Ran into difficulties tonight. Need to protect against kernel types > that conflict with glibc in linux/types.h. I'm not sure what you're trying say in this post. It would help if you specified the actual problem you are having. > The quick solution for xorg-server was to >

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

DJ Lucas wrote: Ran into difficulties tonight. Need to protect against kernel types that conflict with glibc in linux/types.h. From llh: #include #include #include #ifndef __KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES typedef __u32 __kernel_dev_t; #if defined(WANT_KERNEL_TYPES) || !defined(__GLIBC__) typed

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Jim Gifford wrote: I've actually taken the scripts a bit further. Building GLIBC and GCC from the raw kernel headers and only using the sanitized stuff for everything else. On a few of the lists I have seen this done with success and found out that this is the recommended build method for G

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Jim Gifford wrote: > On a few of the lists I have seen this done with success > and found out that this is the recommended build method for GLIBC, still > checking on the status GCC and this situation. It has *always* been an option to compile Glibc against raw headers. Nothing there has changed.

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Jürg Billeter wrote: > I know that it's far from ideal but the only ideal way I see would be to > extensively add __KERNEL__ ifdefs to the linux headers upstream so that > the script could recognize automatically which headers are > kernel-internal. Unfortunately this probably won't happen in the

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 07:24:13PM -0800, Jim Gifford wrote: > > In 2003, Roland actually said glibc should be built with the raw headers. > The thing he's not for is glibc maintaining the headers. The original email > was around July when Greg asked him about the headers. Thanks for the reply,

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Archaic writes: Wasn't it the glibc devs who screamed the loudest about headers? Have they changed their stance or is my memory getting fuzzy in my old age? :) -- Archaic In 2003, Roland actually said glibc should be built with the raw headers. The thing he's not for is glibc maintaining

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 02:10:16PM -0800, Jim Gifford wrote: >I've actually taken the scripts a bit further. Building GLIBC and > GCC from the raw kernel headers and only using the sanitized stuff for > everything else. On a few of the lists I have seen this done with > success and found out

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

I've actually taken the scripts a bit further. Building GLIBC and GCC from the raw kernel headers and only using the sanitized stuff for everything else. On a few of the lists I have seen this done with success and found out that this is the recommended build method for GLIBC, still checking

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

DJ Lucas wrote: Jan 10, 1998 to overcome a problem with linux-2.1.18. Whoops. Wrong long entry! Let me correct that Mar 31, 2004 to correct a problem with 2.4 and 2.6. May still be unneeded. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscrat

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Andrew Benton wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: Andrew Benton wrote: Sysklog-1.4.1 seems to have a problem with asm/atomic.h If it includes asm/processor.h then the sysklog build errors out like this andy:/sources/sysklogd-1.4.1$ make gcc -O3 -DSYSV -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -fno-strength-reduc

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

Jürg Billeter wrote: On Son, 2006-03-19 at 12:28 -0600, DJ Lucas wrote: I'm using with the compat headers (modified from Jurg's version of the script) and glibc-2.3.6. Did not use Jurg's patch, well I did, but came across the same types of errors. After adding to ipaddress.c and ifstat.c,

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

On Son, 2006-03-19 at 12:28 -0600, DJ Lucas wrote: > Jürg Billeter wrote: > > > > Yes, as I've written before, iproute2 is one of the problematic > > packages. Besides fixing the includes[1] you need to remove the local > > copy of the not sanitized kernel headers, i.e. rm -r include/linux[2] > I

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

Jürg Billeter wrote: Yes, as I've written before, iproute2 is one of the problematic packages. Besides fixing the includes[1] you need to remove the local copy of the not sanitized kernel headers, i.e. rm -r include/linux[2] Jürg [1] http://www.paldo.org/paldo/sources/iproute2/iproute2-2.6.15

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers - remove asm-generic

DJ Lucas wrote: Don't do that. Do it from the toplevel. There is one instance in linux/errno.h for asm-generic/errno.h. okay..scratch that completely... Kill asm-generic with this snipit: ## Flatten asm-generic headers # first unifdef all the _ASM_GERNERIC_*_H #ifndef's cd asm-generic fo

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

On Son, 2006-03-19 at 00:31 +, Andrew Benton wrote: > Jürg Billeter wrote: > > I've integrated most of your changes and put it online at > > http://www.paldo.org/headers/linux-glibc-headers-20060318 > > I changed the error messages in linux/compiler.h and linux/config.h to > > warnings to reall

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers - remove asm-generic

DJ Lucas wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: I also noticed that LLH moves things from asm-generic and incorporates them into asm-{arch}, so that kinda of throws things off a little. I have an idea about this too. This may not be portable because of the math, not sure: cd asm-${arch} Don't do

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

Jürg Billeter wrote: I've integrated most of your changes and put it online at http://www.paldo.org/headers/linux-glibc-headers-20060318 I changed the error messages in linux/compiler.h and linux/config.h to warnings to really be a compatibility header. Thanks Jürg. With that script I made the

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Sam, 2006-03-18 at 19:22 +, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Jrg Billeter wrote: > > > Could you post the error message? What exact header set did you use? > > Just removing linux/compiler.h without removal of compiler.h references > > and the correct seds for __user etc. is likely

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

Jürg Billeter wrote: > It's right that they gain nothing in the for loops. I've added the > "backticks" to the REMOVE_HEADERS lines on purpose, though, as the > shell doesn't expand braces when defining variables but probably > there is a better way to get expanded variables, don't know. Hmm...

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

Jürg Billeter wrote: I've also removed the asm-generic flattening as I don't see any benefit in doing that but maybe there is, then please explain. Not really any benifit other than it was done with previous LLH. The one minor benefit is one less directory. That's it. :-) It adds about 3

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, J�rg Billeter wrote: Could you post the error message? What exact header set did you use? Just removing linux/compiler.h without removal of compiler.h references and the correct seds for __user etc. is likely to fail. Not for the first time, I've produced a duff bug report

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Jürg Billeter wrote: > On Sam, 2006-03-18 at 08:56 +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: >> Jürg Billeter wrote: >> >>> - asterisk: Uses linux/compiler.h, include line could just be removed as >>> linux/ixjuser.h doesn't need the compiler.h defines due to the seds we >>> apply to the headers >> Then

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

On Sam, 2006-03-18 at 08:24 -0500, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: > > for FILE in `echo > > linux/{acct.h,quota.h,resource.h,socket.h,stat.h,time.h,timex.h,un.h,wait.h}` > > Er, hang on here -- why are the echo and the backquotes in there? (I > should note that they're in Jürg's script a

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

On Fre, 2006-03-17 at 23:37 -0600, DJ Lucas wrote: > Using the above notes, I've added the following to Jürg's version of the > script so to create the 'compatibility' headers. Of course these > could be created once and be copied too...just figured I'd add to the > script so no local files m

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Sam, 2006-03-18 at 16:10 +, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Jrg Billeter wrote: > > > On Sam, 2006-03-18 at 08:56 +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > >> Then better make linux/compiler.h an empty file. > > > > If you want to go for best compatibility, sure; I currently aim to get

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, J�rg Billeter wrote: On Sam, 2006-03-18 at 08:56 +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: Then better make linux/compiler.h an empty file. If you want to go for best compatibility, sure; I currently aim to get the header set as clean as possible, i.e. applications including un

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

Bryan Kadzban wrote: DJ Lucas wrote: for FILE in `echo linux/{acct.h,quota.h,resource.h,socket.h,stat.h,time.h,timex.h,un.h,wait.h}` Er, hang on here -- why are the echo and the backquotes in there? (I should note that they're in Jürg's script as well.) They gain nothing, and waste at leas

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

DJ Lucas wrote: > for FILE in `echo > linux/{acct.h,quota.h,resource.h,socket.h,stat.h,time.h,timex.h,un.h,wait.h}` Er, hang on here -- why are the echo and the backquotes in there? (I should note that they're in Jürg's script as well.) They gain nothing, and waste at least one process. (I bel

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Sam, 2006-03-18 at 08:56 +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Jürg Billeter wrote: > > > - asterisk: Uses linux/compiler.h, include line could just be removed as > > linux/ixjuser.h doesn't need the compiler.h defines due to the seds we > > apply to the headers > > Then better make linux/comp

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers - remove asm-generic

Jim Gifford wrote: I also noticed that LLH moves things from asm-generic and incorporates them into asm-{arch}, so that kinda of throws things off a little. I have an idea about this too. This may not be portable because of the math, not sure: cd asm-${arch} # find files that contain '@

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Compatibility scripts

Jürg Billeter wrote: On Die, 2006-03-14 at 22:01 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote: On Die, 2006-03-14 at 14:10 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote: * Verify headers with real applications Will do a full distro (800 packages) recompilation with these headers sometime this week and fix headers resp. applica

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Jürg Billeter wrote: - asterisk: Uses linux/compiler.h, include line could just be removed as linux/ixjuser.h doesn't need the compiler.h defines due to the seds we apply to the headers Then better make linux/compiler.h an empty file. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/ma

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Sam, 2006-03-18 at 08:50 +1100, Greg Schafer wrote: > Jürg Billeter wrote: > > * headers-list: Sorted list of all found header references > > * headers-xref: Header list cross-referenced to the package names > > (useful to exclude header references of kernel module source code that's > > unfor

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Jürg Billeter wrote: > I've also run a script to find used kernel headers over the sources of > the 800 packages (except kernel and headers packages). You can find the > results on http://www.paldo.org/headers/ Wow. Again, excellent work. > * headers-list: Sorted list of all found header refere

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Die, 2006-03-14 at 22:01 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote: > On Die, 2006-03-14 at 14:10 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote: > > * Verify headers with real applications > >Will do a full distro (800 packages) recompilation with these headers > > sometime this week and fix headers resp. applications as ne

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Die, 2006-03-14 at 21:49 -0600, DJ Lucas wrote: > Jürg. I haven't really looked into it, other than a grep through glibc > source, but would it be acceptable to replace these headers with > something like the following (example taken from llh linux/socket.h): > >

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Jürg Billeter wrote: Short preliminary report after rebuilding the base system (about 240 packages). Following problems found so far: Looking very promising! :-) - iproute2: Uses linux/if.h and linux/ip.h instead of net/if.h and netinet/ip.h. - nmap: Uses linux/if.h instead of net/if.h.

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Mit, 2006-03-15 at 09:11 +1100, Greg Schafer wrote: > Jürg Billeter wrote: > > > Very short rationale is given on top of each file group. Detailed > > rationale for each header would unfortunately be too time consuming. > > Hmmm, that's not ideal. I'm assuming you've looked at each header and

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Jürg Billeter wrote: > Very short rationale is given on top of each file group. Detailed > rationale for each header would unfortunately be too time consuming. Hmmm, that's not ideal. I'm assuming you've looked at each header and used your judgement to determine whether it should be removed or no

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Die, 2006-03-14 at 13:27 -0800, Jim Gifford wrote: > Jürg Billeter wrote: > > On Die, 2006-03-14 at 14:10 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote: > > > > Short preliminary report after rebuilding the base system (about 240 > > packages). Following problems found so far: > > > > - dvd+rw-tools: /\b__user/

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Jürg Billeter wrote: On Die, 2006-03-14 at 14:10 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote: Short preliminary report after rebuilding the base system (about 240 packages). Following problems found so far: - dvd+rw-tools: /\b__user/ matched a struct in linux/capability.h whose name starts with __user. Fixed

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Die, 2006-03-14 at 14:10 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote: > * Verify headers with real applications >Will do a full distro (800 packages) recompilation with these headers > sometime this week and fix headers resp. applications as necessary Short preliminary report after rebuilding the base syst

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Mit, 2006-03-15 at 06:27 +1100, Greg Schafer wrote: > Jürg Billeter wrote: > > > Yes, LLH fails that criteria and it ships with a lot of kernel-only > > stuff. Based on Jim's script I've written an extended version which > > removes a lot of headers that shouldn't be part of the linux glibc > >

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Thanks for your comments. On Die, 2006-03-14 at 13:05 -0500, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 02:10:27PM +0100, J?rg Billeter wrote: > > a="$(echo -ne '\001')" > > b="$(echo -ne '\002')" > > These can probably be simplified to: > > a=$'\001' > b=$'\002' Didn't know that, changed.

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Jürg Billeter wrote: > Yes, LLH fails that criteria and it ships with a lot of kernel-only > stuff. Based on Jim's script I've written an extended version which > removes a lot of headers that shouldn't be part of the linux glibc > header set, AFAICT. Cool. But one has to ask how you arrived at t

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 02:10:27PM +0100, J?rg Billeter wrote: > a="$(echo -ne '\001')" > b="$(echo -ne '\002')" These can probably be simplified to: a=$'\001' b=$'\002' > pushd $KERNEL_PATH/include I don't think you need to pushd at the start and then popd at the end of the script. The script

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

First, thanks to the work so far to all involved. On Die, 2006-03-14 at 14:59 +1100, Greg Schafer wrote: > Bryan Kadzban wrote: > > I've been running Alexander's tests > > (http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2006-March/056159.html) > > I agree with Alexander that every userspace heade

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Bryan Kadzban wrote: > gccver=`gcc -dumpversion` Oops, that doesn't need to be there anymore... (I attempted at one point to add -nostdinc to the gcc command line, so I needed to add the system header location (/usr/lib/gcc/$MACHTYPE/$gccver/include) to the search path. That seemed to fail, and

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Greg Schafer wrote: > Bryan Kadzban wrote: > >> I've been running Alexander's tests >> (http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2006-March/056159.html) >> > > I agree with Alexander that every userspace header should be > compilable by itself (at least in an ideal world). Note that curren

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Greg Schafer wrote: >> echo '/* empty */' > linux/compiler.h > > Hmm... Is this really necessary? It is if you want to duplicate LLH. I should have added in my post that the above change requires more sanitization eg: removing __user, __force, __nocast, __deprecated, etc.

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Greg Schafer wrote: > echo '/* empty */' > linux/compiler.h Hmm... Is this really necessary? I've been running Alexander's tests (http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2006-March/056159.html) on the output of Jim's script, and right now, it looks like include/linux/byteorder/swab.h is cho

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Jim Gifford wrote: > Just added a compare script. That will compare the difference between the > raw_headers produced with the headers script compared to the headers in > llh. Jim, I've been working along similar lines. I'm getting the diff down all the time. I've included some stuff below which

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Andrew Benton wrote: /* Some generic methods drivers may use in their ethtool_ops */ u32 ethtool_op_get_link(struct net_device *dev); u32 ethtool_op_get_tx_csum(struct net_device *dev); int ethtool_op_set_tx_csum(struct net_device *dev, __u32 data); int ethtool_op_set_tx_hw_csum(struct net_devic

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers -- Comparison Script Added

Just added a compare script. That will compare the difference between the raw_headers produced with the headers script compared to the headers in llh. The bad news is only will work with the 2.6.12 headers, since there isn't a new release. Usage is ./compare 2.6.12 2.6.12.0

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Andrew Benton wrote: This is good because it also catches "s32 It could be improved (only slightly) by putting a space behind the __iomem like so -e 's/\b__iomem //g' \ That would miss a few of the iomem's. Let's look at this a little closer, I'm all for optimize the script. It's dog slow as

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Florian Schanda wrote: Or even better/shorter: -e 's/\b[us]\(8\|16\|32\|64\)/__&/g' \ -e 's/\b__iomem//g' \ This is good because it also catches "s32 It could be improved (only slightly) by putting a space behind the __iomem like so -e 's/\b[us]\(8\|16\|32\|64\)/__&/g' \ -e 's/\b__iomem //g

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Florian Schanda wrote: On Monday 13 March 2006 21:56, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Andrew Benton wrote: It also matches -u{8,16,32,64} and changes them to __u{8,16,32,64} Hrm. Check this again. Are the '-u{8,16,32,64}' matches perhaps diffs of existing lines of 'u{8,16,32,64}' being removed the bett

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

FYI - New Version up, thank you all for your help. Also a make shift changelog is now up http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/changelog -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

On Monday 13 March 2006 21:56, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Andrew Benton wrote: > > It also matches -u{8,16,32,64} and changes them to __u{8,16,32,64} > > Hrm. Check this again. Are the '-u{8,16,32,64}' matches perhaps diffs of > existing lines of 'u{8,16,32,64}' being removed the better sed? I think

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Andrew Benton wrote: It also matches -u{8,16,32,64} and changes them to __u{8,16,32,64} Hrm. Check this again. Are the '-u{8,16,32,64}' matches perhaps diffs of existing lines of 'u{8,16,32,64}' being removed the better sed? I think Jim's original seds didn't get all of them and now Florian'

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Andrew Benton wrote: Florian Schanda wrote: You can replace the long sed with the following: -e 's/\bu8/__u8/g' \ -e 's/\bu16/__u16/g' \ -e 's/\bu32/__u32/g' \ -e 's/\bu64/__u64/g' \ -e 's/\bs8/__s8/g' \ -e 's/\bs16/__s16/g' \ -e 's/\bs32/__s32/g' \ -e 's/\bs64/__s64/g' \ -e 's/\b__iomem//g' \

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Andrew Benton wrote: cat $header | sed -e 's/\( \|(\|,\|\t\)\([us]\)\(8\|16\|32\|64\)/\1__\2\3/g' \ -e 's/\( \|(\|,\|\t\)__iomem /\1/g' \ -e '/#include /d' \ -e 's/#ifdef linux/#ifdef __linux__/g' \

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Andrew Benton wrote: This works cat $header | sed -e 's/\( \|(\|,\|\t\)\([us]\)\(8\|16\|32\|64\)/\1__\2\3/g' \ -e 's/\( \|(\|,\|\t\)__iomem /\1/g' \ -e '/#include /d' \ -e 's/#ifdef linux/#ifdef __linux__/g' \

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Florian Schanda wrote: You can replace the long sed with the following: -e 's/\bu8/__u8/g' \ -e 's/\bu16/__u16/g' \ -e 's/\bu32/__u32/g' \ -e 's/\bu64/__u64/g' \ -e 's/\bs8/__s8/g' \ -e 's/\bs16/__s16/g' \ -e 's/\bs32/__s32/g' \ -e 's/\bs64/__s64/g' \ -e 's/\b__iomem//g' \ That should be more o

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

On Monday 13 March 2006 17:37, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Why not use \< (start of word anchor) instead of \b (whatever \b is)? Haven't seen \< yet, but I think its the same as \b (word boundary). Florian -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratc

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 04:39:11PM +, Florian Schanda wrote: > On Monday 13 March 2006 16:10, Florian Schanda wrote: > > On Wednesday 08 March 2006 04:21, Jim Gifford wrote: > > > available at http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers. > > > > You can replace the long sed with the following: > > > >

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

On Monday 13 March 2006 16:10, Florian Schanda wrote: > On Wednesday 08 March 2006 04:21, Jim Gifford wrote: > > available at http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers. > > You can replace the long sed with the following: > > -e 's/\bu8/__u8/g' \ > -e 's/\bu16/__u16/g' \ > -e 's/\bu32/__u32/g' \ > -e 's

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

On Wednesday 08 March 2006 04:21, Jim Gifford wrote: > available at http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers. You can replace the long sed with the following: -e 's/\bu8/__u8/g' \ -e 's/\bu16/__u16/g' \ -e 's/\bu32/__u32/g' \ -e 's/\bu64/__u64/g' \ -e 's/\bs8/__s8/g' \ -e 's/\bs16/__s16/g' \ -e 's/\b

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Andrew Benton wrote: Another solution is to alter the patch we apply to sysklogd. is pulled in by the module.h file created by the sysklogd-1.4.1-fixes-1.patch. We could alter that to also create an atomic.h file in the sysklogd sources and include that instead of /usr/include/asm/atomic.h.

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

I went to what LLH does on that file, we know that works. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Jim Gifford wrote: Andrew Benton wrote: Sysklog-1.4.1 seems to have a problem with asm/atomic.h If it includes asm/processor.h then the sysklog build errors out like this andy:/sources/sysklogd-1.4.1$ make gcc -O3 -DSYSV -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -fno-strength-reduce -DSYSLOG_INET -DSYSLO

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

New version up. 00.14, removes process.h from atomic.h in I386. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information p

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Andrew Benton wrote: Sysklog-1.4.1 seems to have a problem with asm/atomic.h If it includes asm/processor.h then the sysklog build errors out like this andy:/sources/sysklogd-1.4.1$ make gcc -O3 -DSYSV -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -fno-strength-reduce -DSYSLOG_INET -DSYSLOG_UNIXAF -DNO_SCCS -

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Sysklog-1.4.1 seems to have a problem with asm/atomic.h If it includes asm/processor.h then the sysklog build errors out like this andy:/sources/sysklogd-1.4.1$ make gcc -O3 -DSYSV -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -fno-strength-reduce -DSYSLOG_INET -DSYSLOG_UNIXAF -DNO_SCCS -DFSSTND -DSYSLOGD_PIDNA

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

The one file that I've been checking out extensively is page.h in certain conditions, like in Sparc and Sparc64, a change is required. I also believe a change will also be required for MIPS, but I haven't tested it yet. I'm asking for people who are building on architectures other that x86, S

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

DJ Lucas wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: Script is getting better and better. :-) I'm still seeing some u* and s* types slipping through in v 0.07. Need to add '\t' for those types. See linux/ata.h for an example. -- DJ Lucas Fixed DJ. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

DJ Lucas wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: Script is getting better and better. :-) I'm still seeing some u* and s* types slipping through in v 0.07. Need to add '\t' for those types. See linux/ata.h for an example. -- DJ Lucas DJ Email me privately and I can give you access to the Repo, if you

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Andrew Benton wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: What was the issue? Glibc errored out because include/asm-i386/errno.h referenced asm-generic/errno.h which didn't exist. I only installed include/{linux,asm-i386}. Would it be better to install asm-generic as well? With the LLCH we only install in

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Jim Gifford wrote: What was the issue? Glibc errored out because include/asm-i386/errno.h referenced asm-generic/errno.h which didn't exist. I only installed include/{linux,asm-i386}. Would it be better to install asm-generic as well? With the LLCH we only install include/{linux,asm-i386}

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Andrew Benton wrote: Is it just me? There seems to be a problem with linux/errno.h. Adding this to Jim's script fixed it for me (sorry if the lines get wrapped in the mail) echo "#ifndef _LINUX_ERRNO_H" > linux-headers-$VERSION/include/linux/errno.h unifdef -U_ASM_GENERIC_ERRNO_BASE_H linux-

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Is it just me? There seems to be a problem with linux/errno.h. Adding this to Jim's script fixed it for me (sorry if the lines get wrapped in the mail) echo "#ifndef _LINUX_ERRNO_H" > linux-headers-$VERSION/include/linux/errno.h unifdef -U_ASM_GENERIC_ERRNO_BASE_H linux-headers-$VERSION/includ

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Jim Gifford wrote: Script is getting better and better. :-) I'm still seeing some u* and s* types slipping through in v 0.07. Need to add '\t' for those types. See linux/ata.h for an example. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscr

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Jim Gifford wrote: > I also noticed that LLH moves things from asm-generic and incorporates > them into asm-{arch}, so that kinda of throws things off a little. Just an idea, leave it seperate until the parsing is done then copy|move the headers from asm-generic to asm-{arch}. This might be a lit

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

DJ Lucas wrote: And in 0.6 version of the script I see this...don't know why yet: diff -Naur linux-libc-headers-2.6.12.0/include/linux/ata.h linux-headers-2.6.12.0/include/linux/ata.h --- linux-libc-headers-2.6.1

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

DJ Lucas wrote: Jim, I'm seeing some diffs that concern me with 0.6 version of the script when comparing to LLH. Also, I had a lot of .orig files left in the output tree which probably partially explains the second example below. Fixed - I had the rm $header.orig in the wrong place. There are

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Sorry if this message arrives twice... Jim Gifford wrote: I'm only posting this because my results have been positive, and I think the community has a right to see what I've come up with in 18 hours that I've worked on this. Jim, I'm seeing some diffs that concern me with 0.6 version o

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

DJ Lucas wrote: George Boudreau wrote: Just playing the devil's advocate but have you run your script against a 2.6.12 kernel and compared your output to the 'official' 2.6.12 llh files. There is still a little more to do. unifdef will leave quite a few empty files...well, empty cept f

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Greg Schafer wrote: > But that doesn't escape the fact that this "every man for himself" > approach is essentially wrong. Yes it's been talked about for years, but > Linux *needs* a centralized linux headers project of some sort. Llh is a > step in the right direction and IMHO there is still plent

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Thanx Greg, Fixed. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > __iomem removal is not questionable at all. This macro indicates that > this is not a valid pointer that you can dereference directly, but a > cookie that you can pass to the ioremap() in-kernel function in order to > access the hardware via the MMIO mechanism. Th

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

On 3/8/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Grrr, Gentoo is a convoluted mess.. That's why we have LFS:-) BTW, if you need some rudimentary scripts to make navigating thru the files easier, check out distro-tools at . I have an updated ver

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Jim Gifford wrote: Updated version with the links and why I did things is up. The only thing that has been questionable and I'm still trying to research is the __iomem removal. __iomem removal is not questionable at all. This macro indicates that this is not a valid pointer that you can deref

Re: RFC - Raw Kernel Headers

Updated version with the links and why I did things is up. The only thing that has been questionable and I'm still trying to research is the __iomem removal. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/lis

  1   2   >