Error "[arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1"

[Simón ツ]

I have activated PAE in config but I can't compile:
.....
HOSTCC scripts/mod/file2alias.o
In file included from include/linux/suspend.h:8,
from arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets_32.c:11,
from arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.c:2:
include/linux/mm.h:515:2: error: #error SECTIONS_WIDTH+NODES_WIDTH
+ZONES_WIDTH > BITS_PER_LONG - NR_PAGEFLAGS
make[1]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1
make: *** [prepare0] Error 2
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
.....

The config: http://paste.ubuntu.com/566937/

[kernelOfTruth]

that's a known problem

no known (working) fix for that yet

workarounds:

1) disable PAE

2) go 64bit (migrate)

3) use a 64bit kernel with 32bit userland

[Simón ツ]

I've activated PAE to test this problem: http://groups.google.com/group/zen_kernel/browse_thread/thread/1b9df1e89a70fdbd

I wan't migrate to 64bits, there are too many problems with some programs in Linux 64b.

I didn't know the third option: 64bit kernel with 32bit userland!! But I'm reading several links about this and the results are very disparate and unsatisfactory.
How works this? How can I activate?

2011/2/15 kernelOfTruth <kernel...@gmail.com>

[Simón ツ]

I think I can't use the third option. I use the nvidia drivers.

[Steven Barrett]

Nvidia makes a 64 bit video driver for linux.

[Simón ツ]

I didn't find any guide to do this.
Thanks.

2011/2/15 Steven Barrett <dam...@liquorix.net>

[Steven Barrett]

I don't get it, you simply install the driver and move on. Unless
you're talking about running a 64-bit kernel with a pure 32-bit
userspace - that has to be the dumbest combination of software I have
heard of. Go full 64 or go home.

Lots of people complain that 64-bit linux is not ready. That's pure
FUD, as bad as the misinformation that gets dished out of sidux /
aptosid. I don't want to hear anymore of it.

The real bottleneck is the distribution. If the packagers of the
distribution are responsible and supply the most common and helpful
32-bit libraries to run 32-bit userspace, then running 64-bit linux
with a few 32-bit apps should be transparent. I know there used to be
a few hiccups but lots of folk continue this baseless trend that
64-bit doesn't work based on past experience, none of which is
relevant to today.

So what do you have to gain by switching to 64-bit? That's hard to
answer, so instead I'll answer from the perspective of losing. You
only lose on memory usage, binary size, and any 32-bit software that
are not easily runnable... which are usually the distribution's fault
if they do not have the required 32-bit compatibility packages and
libraries.

I hope that answers your question.

--
Steven Barrett

[Simón ツ]

Thanks, but the perspective of desktop user is different.
It isn't only a question of packages, it's a question of applications developers.
By other side, this would reinstall my entire system, it's discarded for the moment.
Regards.

2011/2/16 Steven Barrett <dam...@liquorix.net>

[Sachi]

I really don't see how it's different for a desktop user.  I have 64bit Firefox and Chromium and there is 64bit Flash.

The only reason I can see not to move is if you have a incredibly small L2, no L3, and slow ram. (like a Celeron D).

The one reason I have 32 compat is wine.

I think Steven was saying for anything there are no problems.  It was a small inconvenience to run a 64 bit desktop 4 years ago.  This doesn't feel like the case today.

Sachi