On 10/05/2017 10:17 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Albert McCann wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: CentOS [mailto:centos-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of m.roth@5- >>> cent.us >>> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 10:58 AM >>> To: CentOS mailing list <centos@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Subject: Re: Missing file in current kernel-devel package >>> >>> Fred Smith wrote: >>>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:56:57AM -0400, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>> Ok, folks, >>>>> >>>>> I've identified what my problem is, trying to install the NVidia >>>>> proprietary drivers: in kernel-devel-3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.x86_64, >>> there >>>>> is a file >>>>> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.x86_64/include/linux/fence.h >>>>> >>>>> It does not exist in the kernel-devel-3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.x86_64 >>>>> package. Is this something that got missed, or did HR drop it, >>> or....? >>>>> >>>> I'm running that kernel with Nvidia 384.90, but I get the nvidia >>>> driver from elrepo. where do you get yours? >>>> >>> Proprietary NVidia. Still, why is fence.h suddenly not there? >> >> While I'm running the Plus kernel, it has the same files. What I'm seeing >> here is that fence.h has been renamed in the 693 kernel to dma-fence.h: >> >> # locate fence.h >> >> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/linux/fence.h >> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/linux/seqno-fence.h >> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/trace/events/fenhttps://lwn.net/Articles/685049/ce.h >> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/linux/dma-fence.h >> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/linux/seqno-fence.h >> /usr/src/kernels/3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.centos.plus.x86_64/include/trace/events/dma_fence.h >> >> Looks like upstream renamed it for some reason. > > Not good - I did a diff of fence.h and dma_fence.h, it *appears* to be the > same structures, but all with different names. That's not going to > compile. > > Sorry, but I really don't believe it is good, much less best practice to > do something like removing a kernel include file within one release. If > they'd made it go a away for 7.0, I would deal, but to suddenly drop it, > bad. Tell it to Linus, not us: https://lwn.net/Articles/685049/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
