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

2.0.32 kernel: strange error



Hi,

I posted the message below to comp.os.linux.misc but I didn't get any
answer. Does anybody know more about the problem I describe below? Or can
anyone point me at the right newsgroup for this question?

Remco

-------------------- begin of message --------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:25:10 +0100
From: Remco Blaakmeer <remco@blaakmeer.student.utwente.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: 2.0.32 kernel: strange error

Hi,

I just compiled and succesfully booted the new 2.0.32 kernel. But I am
getting a strange error message which I also got with 2.0.31 and not with
any lower 2.0.x kernel.

I am using modules for most drivers. Only drivers that are needed at boot
time, like ide and ext2fs, are compiled-in. I use kerneld to load the
modules automatically. I have been doing that succesfully for a long time.

The problem is with the 3c509 driver. I have a 3COM 3c509 card and an El
Cheapo NE2000 clone, which have always worked flawlessly. The relevant
lines in /etc/conf.modules are:

alias eth0 3c509
alias eth1 ne
options 3c509 io=0x300
options ne io=0x280

I supplied the 'io' parameters because
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/networking/net-modules.txt says that probing
for these cards is unreliable.

Now, when I boot a 2.0.31 or 2.0.32 kernel, I get this error message when
kerneld tries to load the 3c509 driver:

symbol for parameter io not found

and in the syslog there is a line:

Nov 20 04:17:40 blaakmeer insmod: /lib/modules/2.0.32/net/3c509.o: symbol for parameter io not found

I have discovered that removing the 'options' line for the 3c509 solves
the problem, but I can't find any documentation describing this change in
behaviour. Does anybody know what's wrong?

Remco

-------------------- end of message --------------------


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: