Xen devel - Apr 2006 - Error compiling with CONFIG_PROFILING (xenoprof)

A xen-unstable changeset between 9515:d0d3fef37685 and 9576:050ad9813cdb 
broke compiling the kernel with CONFIG_PROFILING=y here. (I have not yet 
tested a later cs.)

There were some changesets regarding xenoprof.
http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?cmd=changelog&rev=xenoprof#

Perhaps some of those broke my build. I have disabled CONFIG_PROFILING for 
now because I don''t need it currently, but I thought I''d let
you know.

Here is the build error:
arch/i386/oprofile/xenoprof.c:315: error: unknown field `set_active'' 
specified in initializer
arch/i386/oprofile/xenoprof.c:315: warning: initialization from incompatible 
pointer type
make[1]: *** [arch/i386/oprofile/xenoprof.o] Error 1
make: *** [arch/i386/oprofile] Error 2


That is from linux 2.6.16.1 with xen patched into the kernel from "make 
mkpatches". I can supply the kernel config as well as my kernel source RPM 
to recreate the problem, if that helps.

Best Regards,
Michael Paesold 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 10 Apr 2006, at 10:45, Michael Paesold wrote:
>
> Here is the build error:
> arch/i386/oprofile/xenoprof.c:315: error: unknown field
`set_active''
> specified in initializer
> arch/i386/oprofile/xenoprof.c:315: warning: initialization from 
> incompatible pointer type
> make[1]: *** [arch/i386/oprofile/xenoprof.o] Error 1
> make: *** [arch/i386/oprofile] Error 2
>
>
> That is from linux 2.6.16.1 with xen patched into the kernel from 
> "make mkpatches". I can supply the kernel config as well as my
kernel
> source RPM to recreate the problem, if that helps.
You''re missing the extra patch in file 
patches/linux-2.6.16/xenoprof-generic.patch.

''make mkpatches'' should be incorporating the extra patches
from
patches/linux-2.6.16 -- if it isn''t then it needs fixing to do so.

  -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2006, at 10:45, Michael Paesold wrote:
>>
>> Here is the build error:
>> arch/i386/oprofile/xenoprof.c:315: error: unknown field
`set_active''
>> specified in initializer
>> arch/i386/oprofile/xenoprof.c:315: warning: initialization from 
>> incompatible pointer type
>> make[1]: *** [arch/i386/oprofile/xenoprof.o] Error 1
>> make: *** [arch/i386/oprofile] Error 2
>>
>>
>> That is from linux 2.6.16.1 with xen patched into the kernel from
"make
>> mkpatches". I can supply the kernel config as well as my kernel
source
>> RPM to recreate the problem, if that helps.
>
> You''re missing the extra patch in file 
> patches/linux-2.6.16/xenoprof-generic.patch.
Thanks! I had missed that patch when updating to that changeset.
> ''make mkpatches'' should be incorporating the extra
patches from
> patches/linux-2.6.16 -- if it isn''t then it needs fixing to do so.
I think "make mkpatches" is correct, but I missed the additional
patch. To
use the patch from mkpatches and apply them to a vanilla kernel, one also 
needs to apply all patches from patches/linux-2.6.16. "make mkpatches"
creates diffs between vanilla+patches/linux-2.6.16 and 
xenified+patches/linux-2.6.16).

Best Regards,
Michael Paesold 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 10 Apr 2006, at 12:28, Michael Paesold wrote:
> "make mkpatches" creates diffs between
vanilla+patches/linux-2.6.16
> and xenified+patches/linux-2.6.16).
I would have thought it would make more sense for it to diff against 
vanilla/linux-2.6.16 (i.e., the pristine tree rather than the ref 
tree). Most people are going to want an all-in-one patch to apply to a 
vanilla kernel tree.

  -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2006, at 12:28, Michael Paesold wrote:
>
>> "make mkpatches" creates diffs between
vanilla+patches/linux-2.6.16 and
>> xenified+patches/linux-2.6.16).
>
> I would have thought it would make more sense for it to diff against 
> vanilla/linux-2.6.16 (i.e., the pristine tree rather than the ref tree). 
> Most people are going to want an all-in-one patch to apply to a vanilla 
> kernel tree.
You are right, I also see no real value in having one xen patch + several 
extra patches to apply. It rather makes the process of patching more 
complicated. Although rpm helps me with the patching, I still have to 
manually review changes in patches/ everytime I rebase our own RPMs... 
resulting in this very thread. :-)

Does anyone see a use-case for not creating an all-in-one patch? On a second 
thought, a separate "make mkpatch" (or a more explicit target name)
could
provide an all-in-one patch without introducing transitioning problems for 
users of mkpatches.

Should I create a patch to implement that? (Seems rather trivial and 
suitable for my limited Makefile fu.)

Best Regards,
Michael Paesold 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 10 Apr 2006, at 14:02, Michael Paesold wrote:
> You are right, I also see no real value in having one xen patch + 
> several extra patches to apply. It rather makes the process of 
> patching more complicated. Although rpm helps me with the patching, I 
> still have to manually review changes in patches/ everytime I rebase 
> our own RPMs... resulting in this very thread. :-)
>
> Does anyone see a use-case for not creating an all-in-one patch? On a 
> second thought, a separate "make mkpatch" (or a more explicit
target
> name) could provide an all-in-one patch without introducing 
> transitioning problems for users of mkpatches.
>
> Should I create a patch to implement that? (Seems rather trivial and 
> suitable for my limited Makefile fu.)
Actually I just fixed it already. :-)  I think there will be no 
complaints and, if that''s the case, we can also backport to 3.0.2 
series.

  -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel