[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [debian-knoppix] Knoppix 3.2 Kernel



Am Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:14:11 +0100
Christian Perle <perle@itm.tu-clausthal.de> schrieb:

> Hi Andreas,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 15:25:52 +0000, Andreas Volz wrote:
> 
> > could someone tell me which kernel is used in Knoppix 3.2 (uname
> > -r)? Is this a orginal Kernel from kernel.org or did the knoppix
> > developers apply some patches?
> 
> It is a vanilla 2.4.20 kernel with XFS patch and a very small
> additional patch to extend the boot commandline length.
> 
> > I wish to know it, because someone told me he couldn't compile a
> > specific module with knoppix 3.2. I've only Knoppix 3.1 to try and
> > there it works. He said I must add this lines to my kernel-module to
> > compile it with knoppix 3.2:
> > 
> > typedef struct urb    urb_t;
> > typedef struct urb *  purb_t;
> > 
> > typedef struct {
> > 	__u8 requesttype;
> > 	__u8 request;
> > 	__u16 value;
> > 	__u16 index;
> > 	__u16 length;
> > } devrequest __attribute__ ((packed));
> 
> This struct is _not_ present in the vanilla kernel from kernel.org.
> Maybe it was present in older kernel versions, I can't check this
> right now.
> 
> > Could someone tell me why these typedefs seems not to be defined in
> > the knoppix 3.2 kernel?
> 
> Because it's simply not there in 2.4.20?

Hmm, I've downloaded a 2.4.20 Kernel from a kernel.org mirror one or two
month ago. In this kernel are these typedefs defined in
/usr/src/linux-2.4.20/include/linux/usb.h. I could also compile this
module with "my" 2.4.20 kernel. Are there different versions of 2.4.20
out there?

/usr/src/linux-2.4.20/Makefile
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 4
SUBLEVEL = 20
EXTRAVERSION =
...

Sorry, if this is off-topic on this list. If nobody has an answer I'll
ask this question on a more on-topic list.

reagards
Andreas
_______________________________________________
debian-knoppix mailing list
debian-knoppix@linuxtag.org
http://mailman.linuxtag.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-knoppix


Reply to: