R: R: R: tulip.o kernel module
thank you for your correction.
you never stop learning .. :)
Marco Frattola (S3 - Sviluppo Software e Sistemi) -
Cubecom S.p.A.
Via de Marini,1 3 piano Torre WTC
16149 GENOVA
tel. 010 6591184
> Da: cjw44@flatline.org.uk [mailto:cjw44@flatline.org.uk]
> Inviato: giovedì 25 maggio 2000 19.45
> A: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Oggetto: Re: R: R: tulip.o kernel module
>
>
> marco frattola <marco.frattola@cubecom.it> wrote:
> >Parrish M Myers <parrishmyers@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I built it by hand. Reason being I shouldn't have to recompile the
> >> entire kernel to add one module. So I tried it that way. I
> >> downloaded
> >> the 2.2.14 kernel-source and messed arround with the
> compile command
> >> for a while and found that the sugested command:
> >>
> >> gcc -DMODULE -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux/net/inet -Wall
> >> -Wstrict-prototypes -O6 -c tulip.c
> >>
> >> does not work... but
> >>
> >> gcc -DMODULE -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux/include -Wall
> >> -Wstrict-prototypes -O6 -c tulip.c
> >>
> >> worked. Once that was done, I thought I just had to install the
> >> module in the correct place and do a 'depmod -a'.
>
> Er! I'm not surprised it broke, then. The Makefiles are there to help
> you, and if you use them your life will become a lot easier. The fact
> that gcc didn't return any errors doesn't necessarily mean that it was
> doing what you thought it was doing (the object file you produced
> probably needed to be linked against something else). Try changing to
> the directory containing tulip.c and typing 'make tulip.o'
> instead, then
> installing it as before.
>
> If that doesn't work, then I've missed out a step, too; trying 'make
> modules' or just 'make' in the appropriate directory might
> work better,
> even if it takes a little longer (it's still not a full kernel
> recompilation). Your problem, at any rate, is that tulip.o
> isn't linked
> against something against which it needs to be linked, which doesn't
> surprise me too much when it's compiled with just 'gcc -c'.
>
> >i don't think you can build module(s) without building the
> kernel that will
> >use it/them.
> >i've always made my kernel a-la debian (with kernel-package)
> and never had
> >problems with modules.
> >the reason is (my opinion, please correct if i'm wrong) that
> kernel need to
> >know which modules it has to be prepared to support.
>
> No, that's not true. This is what modules are for ... and, if you use
> module versioning, you *may* be able to get modules compiled against a
> different kernel version to work, too.
Reply to: