Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?
Cc: simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:13:37 -0400
simon wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Joseph Mack wrote:
> > When I try to load the ip_vs_rr module I get
> >
> > #: insmod ip_vs_rr
> > /lib/modules/2.4.3/kernel/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_rr.o: unresolved symbol 
> > register_ip_vs_scheduler
> > /lib/modules/2.4.3/kernel/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_rr.o: unresolved symbol 
> > ip_vs_get_debug_level
> > /lib/modules/2.4.3/kernel/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_rr.o: unresolved symbol 
> > unregister_ip_vs_scheduler
> > Using /lib/modules/2.4.3/kernel/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_rr.o
> >
> Did you do 'make modules' and 'make modules_install'?

yup did all that (I think)

> As to having to make them as modules, you might try editing
> the .config file by hand and chaning the M to a Y.

got that one straight now. Don't know what I did there. Maybe
not enought coffee.

I can compile the "in kernel" way (according to the README)
as modules, all in kernel, ip_vs in kernel and schedulers
as modules. If I do it the "modules" way, Ican't load the

Interesting domain name :-)


Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, Lockheed Martin
contractor to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center, 
mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>