Nvidia Kernel 1.0.6111 Fix for mm-sources thread

Message

geki · Post by **geki** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:58 am

why don't you guys look at mm's broken-out and unpatch the non->gpl patches? ^^ since Andrew likes long patch names shouldnt be that difficult

firephoto · Post by **firephoto** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:04 pm

I quit using the rc kernels and never use the mm kernels due to the instability since 2.6.8. Hopefully nvidia can come up with a fix for the "kernel dev playing god" problem by the time 2.6.10 goes to stable release.

fallow · Post by **fallow** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:14 pm

2610-rc1-mm2 here..
after changed EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL to EXPORT_SYMBOL in kernel source , nvidia module wad loaded fine , but black screen after startx... ;(

greetz

DaMouse · Post by **DaMouse** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:02 pm

Bit busy at the moment, try reversing

http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/peop ... -pci.patch

I haven't got much time to fix stuff at the moment

-DaMouse

DaMouse · Post by **DaMouse** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:06 pm

And perhaps

http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/peop ... core.patch

since it has the _GPL changes

-DaMouse

P.S. just reversing the entire mm in one stage works to lol

firephoto · Post by **firephoto** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:14 pm

Does this mean the latest changes are being reversed?
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-k ... 217693&w=2

On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 04:44:33PM +0200, Fabio Coatti wrote:
>
> I understand all your motivation,and I agree with most of them, but I'm asking
> if this is the right way to handle this GPL issue...

I have been recently advised that I should not change these symbols, and
so I will not.

Sorry for the noise and wasted bandwidth, will not happen again.

greg k-h

Other reading there led me to believe that this change would mean that non-GPL kernel drivers would not be able to use hotplug and udev so I hope that these changes are thrown out since they left the door open for 9 months or so and allowed everyone to make udev based drivers.

It almost getting to the point where there needs to be a kernel interface that is gpl'd that non-gpl drivers can use so they don't have to "touch" the kernel and "taint" it.

thubble · Post by **thubble** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:58 pm

What is the logic behind "tainting," anyway? Contrary to popular opinion, nVidia's module is NOT binary-only, the source is available, which is why Gentoo can apply the udev patches, etc. It's just not GPL compatible. According to "Greg KH" though, these changes will probably be reversed, hopefully in the next -mm. Until then I'm using the nv driver, which works just as well as long as you're not using OpenGL or transparency.

dtor · Post by **dtor** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:19 pm

No it is closed - there is a several MB binary object file without source. Only glue between that BLOB and kernel is provided with sources.

Eskarel · Post by **Eskarel** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:50 am

I still personally don't understand the logic behind punishing one of the few companies which provides top drawer linux drivers over something so purely ideological. I mean Linux needs more companies supporting their products not fewer, regardless of the license they release under.

DaMouse · Post by **DaMouse** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:01 pm

Eskarel wrote:I still personally don't understand the logic behind punishing one of the few companies which provides top drawer linux drivers over something so purely ideological. I mean Linux needs more companies supporting their products not fewer, regardless of the license they release under.

So how come ATI manages to send out open source (notably crappy) drivers? It can be done if they wanted to do it which Greg KH is trying to force them to do.

-DaMouse

fallow · Post by **fallow** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:08 pm

after reversing http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/peop ... core.patch and http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/peop ... -pci.patch

black screeen also .

i have black screen also with 6629 version and 2610-rc1-bkX kernel.

(module was loaded fine , without errors )

greetings

Dragonlord · Post by **Dragonlord** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:04 pm

I'm now a bit confused about that VMALLOC issue. I'm ****ed up due to it right now (meaning I'm using the xorg nv driver for the moment, which is rather lame on my GeForce2 MX). So how do I get this hack into my machine using only conventional emerge stuff? I'm just asking as I've never done before messing around in the portage tree sources on my machine and this has to be a production system later on so... yeah... does it make sense to hack it and how?

cyfred · Post by **cyfred** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:50 am

6629 is in portage
6111-r3 is now marked stable

VMALLOC is fixed in both.

Eskarel · Post by **Eskarel** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:22 am

DaMouse wrote:
Eskarel wrote:I still personally don't understand the logic behind punishing one of the few companies which provides top drawer linux drivers over something so purely ideological. I mean Linux needs more companies supporting their products not fewer, regardless of the license they release under.
So how come ATI manages to send out open source (notably crappy) drivers? It can be done if they wanted to do it which Greg KH is trying to force them to do.

-DaMouse

True, but wouldn't you rather have good proprietary drivers than crappy open sources ones?

headgap · Post by **headgap** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:54 am

dumb question:

so if 6111-r3 is marked 'stable', does it have a minimum
kernel revision requirement?

cuz against 2.6.7-r11

modprobe nvidia => 'invalid module format', still