| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kevin72594
Guru
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 307
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:19 am Post subject: Kernel symlink |
 |
|
is it absolutely imperative to make a symlink to /usr/src/linux/ when compiling a new kernel? if so what does this do, and would I have to change it every time I want to switch kernels? I want to test out the 2.6 kernels...thanks for any help  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kevin72594
Guru
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 307
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| One more thing, I have and Athlon XP 2600+ processor, the 2.6 kernel doesn't have the option to use an Athlon XP processor, which one should i use? thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whatalotta
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 23 Nov 2003
Posts: 114
Location: Union City, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:25 am Post subject: Re: Kernel symlink |
|
|
| Kevin72594 wrote: | | is it absolutely imperative to make a symlink to /usr/src/linux/ when compiling a new kernel? |
No, it is not imperative. However, some programs/drivers look for the /usr/src/linux symlink. This is how it used to be for me with emu10k1 and nvidia-kernel. It is perfectly fine to build the kernel in it's own linux-2.X.YY directory. Trust me on this one, I learned how to compile a kernel before I learned how to symlink and it worked fine.
| Kevin72594 wrote: | | if so what does this do, and would I have to change it every time I want to switch kernels? |
If I understand the question right, what it really does is provide a way to just default to linux vs. having to type the long linux-2.X.YY name out all the time. It really is an easy task to rm the symlink and re-symlink it to the kernel source you want. Just makes things easier if you are recompiling the kernel more than once.
Not sure about the Athlon XP kernel question. I use a P4 currently. I thougt I saw it in the kernel config though.
Hope this helps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronmon
Veteran
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 1043
Location: Key West, FL
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Athlon/Duron/K7 is the processor type to choose, provided you are using a 2.6 kernel. In 2.4 it was named differently, I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nerdbert
l33t
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Posts: 981
Location: Berlin
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ronmon wrote: | | Athlon/Duron/K7 is the processor type to choose, provided you are using a 2.6 kernel. In 2.4 it was named differently, I think. |
The Athlon option works, but the flags which are set if you chose Pentium3 should be "closer" to an AthlonXP.
edit: btw: I guess the gentoo-dev sources have an AthlonXP option. However, there is a note in one of the kernel's makefiles (the one, which is about cpus and flags):
| Quote: | # Please note, that patches that add -march=athlon-xp and friends are pointless.
# They make zero difference whatsosever to performance at this time. |
_________________
I'm really wondering what Lovechild is doing nowadays... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronmon
Veteran
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 1043
Location: Key West, FL
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So nerdbert, what CPU do you use and what CPU type do you set?
I have a pair of Athlon MP's and the above recommendation is based on how they actually run. Speculation should be labeled as such. I'm suggesting settings from a long-running and stable system.
Gentoo-sources may be an entirely different story. I gave up on them more than a year ago. My SMP / SCSI system would never boot from a compiled gentoo-sources kernel. Currently I'm using 2.6.2-mm1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nerdbert
l33t
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Posts: 981
Location: Berlin
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ronmon wrote: | So nerdbert, what CPU do you use and what CPU type do you set?
|
It's an AthlonXP. Since there is no AthlonXP option in the configs I tend to choose Pentium-III/Celeron(Coppermine). Pentium3 code runs fine on a XP (don't know about MPs - it's the same chip, but smp might be a different story in this very special case). I don't see a reason to compile my kernel for an Athlon, just because they share the same name.
Here's my first speculation in this thread  : In ..linux/arch/i386/Makefile there are three lines concerning K7s (aka Athlons):
| Quote: |
cflags-$(CONFIG_CPU_K7) := $(call check_gcc,-march=pentium3,-march=i686)
else
cflags-$(CONFIG_CPU_K7) := $(call check_gcc,-march=athlon,-march=i686 $(align)-functions=4) |
I must admit that I'm not into makefiles, but doesn't that mean that the default action is to compile with -march=pentium3 if you chose Athlon? If I'm right (I'm not too sure about this) we don't have to argue about this issue, because you would actually compile for an P3.
_________________
I'm really wondering what Lovechild is doing nowadays... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Kernel & Hardware
