On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:15, Robert Reif<reif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>>
>> From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 21:20:43 +0200
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Kjetil Oftedal mentioned that piggyback_32 was failing
>>> when building a sparc image.
>>>
>>> I tracked this down to the fact that the kernel no longer
>>> provided an absolute symbol named "end".
>>>
>>> Commit 86ed40bd6fe511d26bb8f3fa65a84cb65c235366 ("sparc: unify
>>> sections.h")
>>> renamed end to _end but failed to update piggyback_32.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Kjetil Oftedal <oftedal@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Robert Reif <reif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> This is not even build tested - but looks obvious.
>>>
>>
>> I don't even know how to build test this:
>>
>> davem@sunset:~/src/GIT/sparc-next-2.6$ make ARCH=sparc tftpboot.img
>> CHK include/linux/version.h
>> CHK include/linux/utsrelease.h
>> SYMLINK include/asm -> include/asm-sparc
>> CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
>> <stdin>:1519:2: warning: #warning syscall perf_counter_open not
>> implemented
>> CHK include/linux/compile.h
>> make[1]: *** No rule to make target `arch/sparc/boot/piggyback', needed by
>> `arch/sparc/boot/tftpboot.img'. Stop.
>> make: *** [tftpboot.img] Error 2
>> davem@sunset:~/src/GIT/sparc-next-2.6$
>>
>
> This patch gets piggyback_32.c compiling but there are other issues:
Looking at the code of piggyback_32.c and piggyback_64.c, there aren't
that many differences - I think that these could easily be merged into
a single file.
I'm at work at the moment, but I'll have a closer look tonight.
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx
.Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
