LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Home Forums Tutorials Articles Register
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-22-2003, 10:09 PM   #1
e1000
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: California
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 582

Rep: Reputation: 30
kernel compile questions


i just compiled my first kernel and I am verry discouraged. first off even after i compiled it with just about everything in the main kernel (which only took about 7 or 8 mins on my celeron 500mhz) its smaller than my old kernel (i selected to use ther kernel from the flopy when i was instaling slack)

then i started X windows (thank god that worked) and tried to play music and that didnt work, then I ran "alsamixer" and i said it couldnt find my sound card (which im almost sure that i compiled its driver into the kernel).

why again, do people compile their own kernel, it seems like to much effort for what reward. other than upgrading your kernel, although that also seems useless as long as your current kernel isnt limiting you in some way.
 
Old 10-22-2003, 10:18 PM   #2
DeadPuddle
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Asheville, NC
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 257

Rep: Reputation: 30
If the kernel you were using worked, why did you recompile? You would only recompile if, like you said, you needed support for hardware, or, you want to test the new kernel.
 
Old 10-22-2003, 10:41 PM   #3
e1000
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: California
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 582

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
i recompiled it cause i wanted to have suport suport for 802.11b wireless. i have a USB device but lucky for me it uses the Prism2 chipset.

although the patch at http://www.linux-wlan.com (that suports 802.11b USB) doesnt work for me (it keeps telling me that the kernel headers are there but the source isnt present) so I was gona use my brothers PCI 802.11b card (also uses prism2).

but i guess ill have to go on in linux w/o network, although that seems like a hinderance which might keep me from using slackware as much as i use windows
 
Old 10-22-2003, 10:43 PM   #4
DeadPuddle
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Asheville, NC
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 257

Rep: Reputation: 30
Trial and error. Try again.

 
Old 10-22-2003, 10:51 PM   #5
e1000
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: California
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 582

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
is it's compile supposed to be this quick?
it seemed kinda weird cause it took almost as long as it took when i compiled xmms. that doesnt seem right.

how long does the make "bzImage" & "make" usually take for a fairly large kernel?

and how large are they suposed to be?
my new kernel is only 1200 kb (according to the gentoo graphical file borwser)

last little note, after i did the make bzImage, when it finished its last couple of messages said something about the kernel being to large to boot off a flopy, has anyone else goten this? does it affect the compile in any way?
 
Old 10-22-2003, 11:28 PM   #6
ed_thix
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware 15 & Ubuntu
Posts: 94

Rep: Reputation: 31
how long the bzImage compiles ??? depends on your machine I guess, I got a machine (an old p2, 350mhz) compiling the kernel will take around 2 hrs (from make mrproper to make modules_install)
 
Old 10-22-2003, 11:42 PM   #7
e1000
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: California
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 582

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
DAMIT. MY STUPID SLACKWARE IS SO FREAKING GLICHY.

does ANYBODY get that message about the kernel being to big to boot off a flopy, cause i think that is what is keeping my kernel so small. and i DESPERATLY want to be able to do a regular install without that damn message fu**king stuff up.
 
Old 10-23-2003, 12:01 AM   #8
Azmeen
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware, LFS, CentOS
Posts: 1,307

Rep: Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally posted by e1000
DAMIT. MY STUPID SLACKWARE IS SO FREAKING GLICHY.

does ANYBODY get that message about the kernel being to big to boot off a flopy, cause i think that is what is keeping my kernel so small. and i DESPERATLY want to be able to do a regular install without that damn message fu**king stuff up.
That has got absolutely NOTHING to do with your kernel being small! It's just a NOTIFICATION. Your bzImage will STILL be in your arch/i386/boot/ it's just that IT WON'T FIT ON A FLOPPY. Like the notification said.

Don't lose your head over it... you can still use the kernel as usual...
 
Old 10-23-2003, 10:57 AM   #9
Lempour
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 27

Rep: Reputation: 15
According to compile time I bet you forgot to compile the modules (with "make modules" and then "make modules_install")


You must have read "the kernel compiling guide for noobiez"
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...threadid=49035

if you follow all the steps, you cannot go wrong
 
Old 10-23-2003, 11:01 AM   #10
e1000
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: California
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 582

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
nope, when i did "make modules" it took about 45 seconds, and "make modules_install" took even less time!

its like no matter what I tell it to do it wont compile my kernel. although it does a good job looking like its compiling the kernel, but theres no way that the huge kernel that i configured compiled so quickly

Last edited by e1000; 10-23-2003 at 11:06 AM.
 
Old 10-23-2003, 11:14 AM   #11
Azmeen
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware, LFS, CentOS
Posts: 1,307

Rep: Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally posted by e1000
nope, when i did "make modules" it took about 45 seconds, and "make modules_install" took even less time!

its like no matter what I tell it to do it wont compile my kernel. although it does a good job looking like its compiling the kernel, but theres no way that the huge kernel that i configured compiled so quickly
Ever heard of compiler caching? Frequently used compilations and their flags are cached. So, whenever you compile a new version of your kernel, you'll notice that it is darn slow. However, the next time you recompile, you'll notice a significant reduction in the time that it took to recompile the kernel.

Believe me, if you've configured your kernel options properly, it definitely is in the bzImage. How big did you expect the kernel to be anyway? And how did you come up with this reasoning?
 
  


Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2.6.10 kernel compile questions YBA^[x] Slackware 3 01-20-2005 02:54 PM
Several more questions about kernel compile? BajaNick Slackware 3 01-11-2005 07:59 AM
4 questions on a new 2.6.9 kernel compile? Slovak Linux - General 2 11-29-2004 06:08 AM
Kernel compile questions Alan Lakin Slackware 2 02-01-2004 10:05 PM
[SOLVED] Kernel compile questions Bruce Hill Linux - General 11 07-14-2003 05:38 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration