Hi Chris
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 21:21, cl@isbd.net wrote:
What seems to be the way is to do what I originally did which was to make a copy of /usr/linux/2.6.18 in /usr/linux/2.6.18.1 and then apply the 2.6.18.1 patch in the new area. Then you have to build the new kernel *twice*. You build it once and run it so you have a 2.6.18.1 kernel running, the second build then builds the 'custom' modules correctly (which fail in the first build).
Any third party kernel module that hard codes the kernel path to /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build and won't let you specify an alternative is severely broken (in my opinion). There *should*_always_ be a command line variable accepted so that a user can compile against a different kernel tree. How else would one expect to build for a different target kernel or even cross compile for a different architecture !
If you have to mess around building a kernel twice just for one driver, then either a bug report needs to be filed, or the h/w changed for something with a sane driver - Just my opinion of course ;-)
Regards, Paul.
/me goes looking for an adeos patch for x86_64 against a 2.6.18.x kernel - New toy on order...