On 03/05/10 22:48, Theodore Kilgore wrote: > > > On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >> Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> On 03/05/10 16:51, VDR User wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Theodore Kilgore >>>> <kilgota@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> This is to report the good news that none of the above suspicions have >>>>> panned out. I still do not know the exact cause of the problem, but >>>>> a local >>>>> compile and install of the 2.6.33 kernel did solve the problem. >>>>> Hence, it >>>>> does seem that the most likely origin of the problem is somewhere >>>>> in the >>>>> Slackware-current tree and the solution does not otherwise concern >>>>> anyone on >>>>> this list and does not need to be pursued here. >>>> I experienced the same problem and posted a new thread about it with >>>> the subject "Problem with v4l tree and kernel 2.6.33". I'm a debian >>>> user as well so apparently whatever is causing this is not specific to >>>> debian or slackware. Even though you've got it working now, the >>>> source of the problem should be investigated. >>>> -- >>> >>> It's been several years since I last saw this error and I don't recall >>> what caused it then. >>> >>> The message "Invalid module format" comes from either of modprobe and/or >>> insmod when the kernel returns ENOEXEC to a module (load) syscall. >>> Sometimes the kernel produces more explanatory messages & sometimes >>> not. >>> >>> If there are no more explanatory messages, then kernel/module.c can be >>> built with DEBUGP producing more output (and then that new kernel would >>> have to be loaded). >>> >>> Can one of you provide a kernel config file for a kernel/modprobe >>> combination >>> that produces this message? Some of the CONFIG_MODULE* config >>> symbols could >>> have relevance here also. >>> >> >> >> I suspect that it may be related to this: >> >> # Select 32 or 64 bit >> config 64BIT >> bool "64-bit kernel" if ARCH = "x86" >> default ARCH = "x86_64" >> ---help--- >> Say yes to build a 64-bit kernel - formerly known as x86_64 >> Say no to build a 32-bit kernel - formerly known as i386 >> >> With 2.6.33, it is now possible to compile a 32 bits kernel on a 64 bits >> machine without needing to pass make ARCH=i386 or to use >> cross-compilation. >> >> Maybe you're running a 32bits kernel, and you've compiled the out-of-tree >> modules with 64bits or vice-versa. >> >> My suggestion is that you should try to force the compilation wit the >> proper >> ARCH with something like: >> make distclean >> make ARCH=`uname -i` >> make ARCH=`uname -i` install >> >> -- >> >> Cheers, >> Mauro > > Mauro, > > After I did a re-compile of the kernel and modules, all the gspca stuff > (at least, what I tested which is two or three cameras) all worked just > fine. All I needed to do was make distclean and then make menuconfig > again and the gspca setup "saw" my new kernel. I made sure to know this > by putting up a slightly different name for it, using > CONFIG_LOCALVERSION= option. So I guess to this extent I used force, but > I did not need to do more than that. > > > Now, seeing if I can help further in tracking this thing down, here are > some more details. > > 1. As I said, the problem is fixed now, by a local re-compile of the > kernel (I did change a few things in the configuration and also cleared > out a lot of junk which has nothing to do with my hardware, of course). > So there might be some things of interest in the two config files. > Naturally, I can send them to anyone who would like to see them. But I > think that I cover the important differences below. > > > Additional comment: I probably could have taken the option of running > Slackware64 if I wanted to do that, because I suspect that my hardware > would support it. But I used regular Slackware. So the kernel, the > modules, and everything else are 32-bit, or supposed to be, though the > machine could run 64-bit. > > 2. According to what you are saying, here from my current config file is > what might be relevant > > # CONFIG_64BIT is not set > CONFIG_X86_32=y > # CONFIG_X86_64 is not set > CONFIG_X86=y > CONFIG_OUTPUT_FORMAT="elf32-i386" > CONFIG_ARCH_DEFCONFIG="arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig" > > and also it might possibly be important, too, that the processor type I > chose was > > CONFIG_MK8=y > > for the very good reason that this is what is in the machine. Also I cut > the choice for support of parallel CPUs down to 2 CPUs from 8 CPUs, > again because that is what is actually present. > > And furthermore my kernel config says > > CONFIG_LOCALVERSION="-my" > > and the original one says > > CONFIG_LOCALVERSION="-smp" > > so that I have two distinct sets of modules, 2.6.33-my and 2.6.33-smp > and I can go back and boot from the Slackware kernel to a functioning > machine, too. > > The kernel which I used from Slackware-current is one of the standard > ones, the one called vmlinuz-huge-smp-2.6.33-smp which comes in the > Slackware package called kernel-huge-smp-2.6.33_smp-i686-1.txz. Its > config file is in the package, too, so here are the similar parts of it: > > # CONFIG_64BIT is not set > CONFIG_X86_32=y > # CONFIG_X86_64 is not set > CONFIG_X86=y > CONFIG_OUTPUT_FORMAT="elf32-i386" > CONFIG_ARCH_DEFCONFIG="arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig" > > The above looks the same to me as my choices. But the CPU type was quite > different, of course, because it was a distro kernel. > > CONFIG_M686=y > > And the Slackware kernel also chose > > CONFIG_X86_GENERIC=y > > but when re-compiling I turned that off. Hey, How are these kconfig symbols set? CONFIG_MODULES CONFIG_MODULE_FORCE_LOAD CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD CONFIG_MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD CONFIG_MODVERSIONS CONFIG_MODULE_SRCVERSION_ALL in both a working (distro?) kernel and in the failing kernel, please. > Also, as mentioned previously, the choice in the Slackware kernel was to > support up to 8 parallel CPUs. > > If there is anything else of interest in comparing the two config files, > someone should let me know. The only thing I can put my finger on is the > different choice of CPU and possibly the "GENERIC" option can cause > occasional problems? > > I seem to recall that I have had trouble with this kind of thing > sometimes in the long-ago past, as someone else has mentioned. On a > couple of occasions way back when, some of the "stock" distro modules > would not initialize properly and the cure was to do a local > kernel-and-modules compile. Not that compiling the kernel bothered me > terribly back then, or now. But a problem like this one is in a way an > accident, and of course accidents are not supposed to happen. > > Trying to look backward, It seems to me that one factor in the long-ago > problems and also in this one might be the difference between the > default CPU choice in a distro kernel and what is actually in the > machine. Especially, the difference between having "M686" in the kernel > and modules, as opposed to something else (especially something like K8) > being in the machine might sometimes cause interference. And then > modprobe sees the real hardware and sees an apparent conflict in the > choice of M686 in the module. But this is only semi-informed speculation > on my part. Someone else may know a lot more. > > Hoping that the above helps in tracking down the problem. > > Theodore Kilgore > -- ~Randy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
