On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
I.e. shutdown now without -h? Halt without poweroff?
halt without poweroff.
stops the scheduler, but interrupts etc continues running.
but it's not something I'd recommend relying upon. Better to leave the
scheduler running but only have an init
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 05:39, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
I.e. shutdown now without -h? Halt without poweroff?
halt without poweroff.
stops the scheduler, but interrupts etc continues running.
but it's not something I'd recommend relying upon.
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Jeff Dike prattled cheerily:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:09:06AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
So I don't care about systemcall interception or anything like that,
*blink* *blink*
Ok, you want user mode linux, but you don't want it to actually run user
processes, nor do
On Monday 14 November 2005 14:59, Nix wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Jeff Dike prattled cheerily:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:09:06AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
So I don't care about systemcall interception or anything like that,
*blink* *blink*
Ok, you want user mode linux, but you don't
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Nix wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] moaned:
On Monday 14 November 2005 14:59, Nix wrote:
I've long wanted to do the same sort of thing,
the kernel keeps
processing network packets and firewalling and bridging them perfectly
well, but attackers now
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:35:47PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
Jeff was going to split out the scheduler and filesystem into shared
libraries
or some such. He mentions it in his intermittent diary, among other places.
This has nothing to do with that.
One of my other future projects is
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 22:07, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:35:47PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
Jeff was going to split out the scheduler and filesystem into shared
libraries or some such. He mentions it in his intermittent diary, among
other places.
This has nothing
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 22:18, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:18:58PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
1) Is there any documentation on SKAS0's design? (A couple things
floated by, but it was piecemeal and I didn't have the necessary
context.)
There was a big message when I
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
(Wow, sourceforge's mailing list archives are almost as difficult to use as
their download mirror system. That takes _effort_.)
There is other mirrors more easily navigated.. my preference is MARC:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:13:19PM -0800, Can Sar wrote:
Do the other threads (particularly the user thread) ever
do something else that would be important?
The user thread doesn't. The IO thread does, if you wish to do IO.
And you can easily dispense with the sigio emulation thread.
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 16:43, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:13:19PM -0800, Can Sar wrote:
Do the other threads (particularly the user thread) ever
do something else that would be important?
The user thread doesn't. The IO thread does, if you wish to do IO.
Since he
On Nov 8, 2005, at 7:43 AM, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:13:19PM -0800, Can Sar wrote:
Do the other threads (particularly the user thread) ever
do something else that would be important?
The user thread doesn't. The IO thread does, if you wish to do IO.
And you can easily
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 09:46, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:09:06AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
So I don't care about systemcall interception or anything like that,
*blink* *blink*
Ok, you want user mode linux, but you don't want it to actually run user
processes,
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
Why?
Trust me, I wouldn't do this if it were not for a reason. I have no
intention of marketing this as a general purpose alternative to
Linux. It's to check Linux for errors.
I just don't understand your potential use case. (I've seen some
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 01:35, Rob Landley wrote:
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
P.S. What on earth is CONFIG_CMDLINE_ON_HOST? It doesn't seem to ever be
set anywhere, by anything...
Totally unrelated. In short, it's TT-only, it implements the old behaviour
(nice
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 10:13, Blaisorblade wrote:
Did you ever read Rik van Reil's list of the dumbest patches he's ever
seen? This is the first entry in the list:
http://www.surriel.com/potm/apr2001.shtml
Sorry I don't see your point, Rob - it's a really different thing.
As has
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 18:48, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 01:35, Rob Landley wrote:
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
P.S. What on earth is CONFIG_CMDLINE_ON_HOST? It doesn't seem to ever be
set anywhere, by anything...
Totally unrelated. In
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 02:17, Rob Landley wrote:
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 18:48, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 01:35, Rob Landley wrote:
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
P.S. What on earth is CONFIG_CMDLINE_ON_HOST? It doesn't seem to
Hi,
I am trying to make a 1 thread version of UML that does not need to
be able to support user level programs. So I don't care about
systemcall interception or anything like that, I just want a copy of
UML that gets a basic kernel environment running (where I could call
some kernel
On Monday 07 November 2005 23:13, Can Sar wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to make a 1 thread version of UML that does not need to
be able to support user level programs.
Why?
Did you ever read Rik van Reil's list of the dumbest patches he's ever seen?
This is the first entry in the list:
On Nov 7, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
On Monday 07 November 2005 23:13, Can Sar wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to make a 1 thread version of UML that does not need to
be able to support user level programs.
Why?
Trust me, I wouldn't do this if it were not for a reason. I have no
21 matches
Mail list logo
