Matthew Dharm wrote: > > So, we've got a problem somewhere in the module handling. Either the > symbol wasn't being relocated properly, or it wasn't being allocated > properly, or something. I'm not an expert in this region of the > kernel, but my guess is that we're going to see this more and more > often, so someone with a clue should take a look at this. To me, this looks like a problem with common symbols that I have run into a couple of times (I think it was in i2o). Compiling with -fno-common or linking with -d worked for me. (Or avoid having uninitialized global variables.) I guess insmod should actually complain in this case ?! -Tommy
