Forum Discussion

Altera_Forum's avatar
Altera_Forum
Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
19 years ago

linux 2.6.12 instability

hippo, I'm starting a new thread to keep track of this...

I think 2.6.12 looks better than .16 - it hasn't failed on me yet. the patches you gave me were a bit messy though, I think maybe some things were missing. I also get these warnings on every single file compiled:

In file included from /share/nios2/tmp/linux-2.6.12/include/linux/sched.h:17,

from /share/nios2/tmp/linux-2.6.12/include/linux/module.h:10,

from /share/nios2/tmp/linux-2.6.12/init/version.c:10:

/share/nios2/tmp/linux-2.6.12/include/linux/nodemask.h: In function `__first_unset_node':

/share/nios2/tmp/linux-2.6.12/include/linux/nodemask.h:250: warning: passing arg 1 of `find_next_zero_bit' discards qualifiers from pointer target type

Page allocation failures is one thing, but I'm more worried about the kernel hanging completely like .16 was doing. I also have a feeling it's the busybox version. I noticed that in 1.1.1, the file utilities were a bit messed up. For example, here is the output from a normal 'df -h':

# busybox_old df -h

Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on

/dev/ram0 235.0k 14.0k 221.0k 6% /var

/dev/ram1 235.0k 13.0k 222.0k 6% /tmp

/dev/hda1 14.5M 12.3M 1.5M 89% /mnt/cf#

Here is the output of 1.1.1 df -h:

# df -h

Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on

/dev/ram0 235.0k 14.0k 221.0k 6% (null)

/dev/ram1 235.0k 13.0k 222.0k 6% (null)

/dev/hda1 14.5M 12.3M 1.5M 89% (null)#

All the filesystem utilities, like mke2fs, du, e2fsck, are weird like this. I will keep playing around with 2.6.12 and see what happens.

26 Replies

Show More
  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    19 years ago

    hippo, I was just starting on 2.6.16, and I was wondering how come the uClinux patch for 2.6.16 is MUCH smaller than 2.6.14 (4K vs. 120K)?

  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    19 years ago

    --- Quote Start ---

    originally posted by jdhar@Apr 14 2006, 06:08 AM

    hippo, i was just starting on 2.6.16, and i was wondering how come the uclinux patch for 2.6.16 is much smaller than 2.6.14 (4k vs. 120k)?

    <div align='right'><{post_snapback}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=14349)

    --- quote end ---

    --- Quote End ---

    sorry, I skipped 01 patch as it was before and jumped from 02 of 2.6.15 when I worked on 2.6.16 .

    I didn&#39;t have them in my svn of 2.6.16.

    Please start from 02 of 2.6.15, and find the diff of what I have in 2.6.16 .

    Mostly in uarts.
  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    19 years ago

    It&#39;s also funny how the uClinux patches themselves are extremely small now... 2.6.15 is only a few K???

  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    19 years ago

    --- Quote Start ---

    originally posted by jdhar@Apr 14 2006, 01:27 PM

    it&#39;s also funny how the uclinux patches themselves are extremely small now... 2.6.15 is only a few k???

    <div align='right'><{post_snapback}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=14356)

    --- quote end ---

    --- Quote End ---

    It isn&#39;t.

    The uClinux patches has been merged into 2.6 main stream.

    So they are just some bugs fix, after each 2.6 release.
  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    19 years ago

    Just verified J&#39;s 2.6.12 snapshot is OK.

    * The .config defaults are not so good, but I successfully used .config from 2.6.x

    * The zImage stuff works :-)
  • Altera_Forum's avatar
    Altera_Forum
    Icon for Honored Contributor rankHonored Contributor
    19 years ago

    I&#39;m not too sure how to get a default .config in there other than attaching it to the archive. There has to be a way to get it into the default build.