[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAANLjFpxeFRF_zaBr6WRdxvYv-4tXzRahhK-7giCmAafjb1m8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:01:32 -0700
From: Robert LeBlanc <robert@...lancnet.us>
To: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>
Cc: Philip Müller <philm@...jaro.org>,
"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: 4.9-rc6 Still "no symbol version" on boot
Confirmed that this patch does resolve the boot issue with
CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y for me. Thank you for the patch and hopefully it
will get included in -rc7.
Thanks.
----------------
Robert LeBlanc
PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:08:28PM +0100, Philip Müller wrote:
>> > due to following commit it seems the 64bit architecture of linux 4.9-rc
>> > is not able to boot at all, as it is unable to find its root device:
>
>> you have to apply following patch also:
>>
>> provide-asm-prototypes.h-for-x86.patch:
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9408985/raw/
>>
>> @Adam, Nick: Was this patch not yet sent to Linus?
>
> The patch stewed in a kbuild-targetted thread since the morning after -rc1,
> Nick has recently requested that it should go through x86 maintainers
> instead. I've sent it there, lemme ping them, as the regression is severe
> and 4.9-final is close.
>
> Apologies if I'm doing something wrong, I'm not a real kernel dev and merely
> was the person who came here looking for a fix, saw Nick's instructions
> and did the legwork implementing them.
>
> Last version (rewritten description) is at:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9439501/
> (needs s/oeter/peter/ for a typo in Peter Wu's address)
>
>
> Meow!
> --
> The bill declaring Jesus as the King of Poland fails to specify whether
> the addition is at the top or end of the list of kings. What should the
> historians do?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists