[Lustre-discuss] 2.6.22

[Papp Tamas]

Bernd Schubert wrote:
>
> Yeah, this is what I immediately thought when I saw your trace. The kernel
> developer somehow manage to change the interface to the cache functions
> on each kernel version (though not during the last digit subversions)
> The trace lets me thing these functions have been called with the wrong
> arguments. However, lustre already has wrapper functions for this and
> I guess the configure script did something wrong this time.
> Unless the lustre developers step in, I will try to find some time
> tomorrow or on Thursday to check what's wrong.

Well, thank you very much.

Have somebody else tried 2.6.22 and lustre?

Bye,

tamas