kernel package

[Oliver Falk]

On 05/14/2007 05:03 PM, Jay Estabrook wrote:
> Oliver Falk wrote:
>> On 05/11/2007 02:01 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>>> Once upon a time the folks at HP were threatening to send me SMP Alpha
>>> boxen -- not sure if I could still pull that off...
>> Anyone from HP here? Jay, do you have any good contacts?
> 
> I've been trying, but unfortunately, no one has stepped forward... :-(
> 
> I'll keep trying, but don't hold your breath.

OK. Good to know you're on it.

>>> +Source50: kernel-%{kversion}-alpha.config
>>> +Source50: kernel-%{kversion}-alpha-smp.config
>> I don't have a smp config at the moment. So we need to put this out,
>> else up will no build clean.
> 
> SMP config is really just UP config with SMP turned on; another option,
> NR_CPUS should be in the range 2-32, others should default OK, unless
> things have changed drastically. I've been building against the latest
> FC5 kernel, ie 2.6.20-1.2316, and haven't had anything unusual turn up.

CONFIG_SMP=y
CONFIG_NR_CPUS=16

Is what I saw recently... Will put a up and smp config in my tree now. 
If it builds fine, someone will be able to test it - I'm sure :-)

>>>  # Exec shield
>>> +%ifnarch alpha alphaev5 alphaev56 alphaev6 alphaev6
>>>  %patch810 -p1
>>> +%endif
>> Even more compile errors. :-)
> 
> One reason we seem to have to put in the multiple Alpha
> arches is, that if ":--target=..." is set for some reason,
> without all the arches listed, build will fail. If there
> were some way to override and reset to base-arch==alpha if
> one of the others shows up would be fine. We really do NOT
> want to build the GENERIC kernel for anything BUT the base
> architecture, of course. Other more specific kernels, like
> TITAN or LX164 or the like, may themselves ask "--mcpu=ev67"
> or "--mcpu=ev56" or some such.

ok.

-of