Re: [linux-mac68k] Re: Results of trying 2.6.7 and 2.6.8 on Macintosh Quadra 650
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Erik C.J. Laan wrote:
> > Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Erik C.J. Laan wrote:
> > >>For both kernels I needed to set the segment count in the ELF header to
> > >>2 using Finn Thain's perl pearl (;-) posted 14/6/2004 to debian-68k.
> > >>Otherwise Penguin would fail with a backward seek error.
> > >
> > > Are you sure about that? Christian's image for the Amiga I tried during the
> > > weekend didn't need this fix for Amiboot.
> > >
> > > And Amiboot does show the backward seek error on images I created myself with a
> > > `new' binutils.
> >
> > Unfortunately yes I'm sure. First I'd only tried 2.6.7 and received the
> > backward seek error. So I filtered both 2.6.7 and 2.6.8 through Finn
> > perl-script and used those. Afterward I thought what if 2.6.8 wasn't
> > broken to begin with. So I loaded the original 2.6.8 on my Mac
> > partition, tried it and got the error. This is with the 2.6.8 kernel
> > from Christian's site, extracted out of the
> > kernel-image-2.6.8-mac_2.6.8-1_m68k.deb file.
>
> I just checked out the amiga and mac kernel images and they do need fixing
> (according to objdump -p, I don't have Amiboot). So, I guess Roman's patch
> wasn't applied?
Yep, same result here. The kernel I did manage to boot with Amiga-Lilo did have
the stack program header... Strange...
> It would be good to see the patch tested more widely if that would help
> get it into CVS. I've only tested the patch with binutils-2.15 (gcc 3.3.4
> and 3.4.1) and it worked fine. It would be nice if it also fixed kernels
> built with binutils-2.14.
I can confirm it fixed my uClinux kernel linked with 2.14.90.0.7.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Reply to: