Linux-Development-Sys Digest #841, Volume #6 Thu, 17 Jun 99 14:14:30 EDT
Contents:
Re: ftape4.02 with new kernel 2.2.5-15 (almost) (Mikael Pettersson)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Alexander Viro)
Re: the ultimate OS (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: TAOs: Much to do about nothing? (Gordon Scott)
defined option in socket.h ("dooil song")
SCSI CDDA Commands ("Andrew Clark")
Re: smp latentcy - measure and post please. (mumford)
HELP: How to get the current process table of the system? (Jun Yang)
Re: SCSI CDDA Commands (Dr H. T. Leung)
Unresolved symbol: bad_user_access_length (Tim Wilson)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Peter Samuelson)
Re: ftape4.02 with new kernel 2.2.5-15 (almost) (bill davidsen)
Re: Can Linux Boot and Run without a BIOS? (bill davidsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ftape4.02 with new kernel 2.2.5-15 (almost)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mikael Pettersson)
Date: 17 Jun 1999 13:20:58 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Huib Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I tried to compile the ftape-4.xx driver for kernels
>2.2.x and I had to do some hacking myself.
FYI: I have patches to integrate ftape-4.03pre2 into linux 2.2.10
and 2.3.6 at http://www.csd.uu.se/~mikpe/linux/ftape/.
See the README at that location.
>/sbin/insmod ftape.o
>/sbin/insmod zftape.o
>
>Loading the first module works fine. But loading the second it complains
>about "unresolvved symbols". However, these symbolds ARE resolved since
>these are present in ftape.o.
>
>Anyone can help? What am I doing wrong when loading the modules?
Update your /etc/conf.modules and then /sbin/modprobe zftape. It's in the docs.
--
Mikael Pettersson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Computing Science Department, Uppsala University
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 17 Jun 1999 08:11:28 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Konstantin Koll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. Yes, DESKWORK does not have any directories. We found out that this is one
> point most "newbies" don't understand. They save a file, and don't find it
> the next day because it got lost in some obscure directory. So - your data
> is saved in a flat file structure, allowing retrieval sorted by file type,
> or other criteria like date of creating, its name... You may find this a
> bit strange, but ask someone not familiar with computers about this.
What can I say... I started on RSX-11. It had flat namespace and that was the
part of OS I've cursed most often. YMMV, indeed, but if user doesn't *want*
directories or simply doesn't know WTF they are and how to create them... I
don't see a problem here. Your code - your decisions, indeed.
Out of curiosity - what language have you used for this beast?
>2. The whole code of DESKWORK is linked together in an EXE-file of ~750 KB.
Ouch... Do you mean that all this stuff (including games) runs in ring 0? Scary.
> Uses cannot add or modify ANY code at this point. You're right about this:
> there are now compilers, linkers, programming languages at this point. This
> is because we've just finished all the other stuff like file system, drivers
> and some software. Over time, we'll continue to add software like a web
> browser, TCP/IP and so on (hey, we're just 4 guys... and don't work 10 hrs a
Free advice (which is worth every euro you've paid for it ;-) - don't let the
browser code to run in ring 0. BUGTRAQ is already full of exploit reports.
> day on DESKWORK !)
> However, I don't know whether it would be wise to add languages: user
>programs
> could violate the integrity of the system (viruses) or may not be compliant
See above. If something doesn't need full privileges - don't grant them. 99%
of the stuff can live in ring 3 (proof - any UNIX or (sorry) NT).
[snip]
>3. DESKWORK implements its own DPMI-host. DESKWORK runs in TRUE protected mode,
>but
> does not employ any "flat memory". To this point, 64 KB segement limits has
>not
> been a big problem. Also, cutting large areas of memory into 64 KB chunks
>reduces
> the external memory fragmentation. DESKWORK does not use any paging, so an
>address
> a program gets stays that address.
Erm... Are we talking about the same architecture? Paging doesn't affect
logical addresses - you can move the page to different physical address, modify
the entry in page table and for the program *nothing* had changed.
Flat address space is *very* big win, since there are decent compilers for
x86 PM. Yup, crosscompiling and all such. If you decide on a format of
executable files you can simply hack an appropriate backend for libbfd and
build ld for it. Add a library of wrappers to whatever you are using as
system calls, write startup object files (crtinit.o and friends) and you've
got gcc, g++, gpc, etc. for free. Then you can use almost any UNIX as
development platform. And DOS, BTW - there is djgpp. Getting self-hosted
variants would be very tricky, though - none of those animals will be happy
in flat namespace...
> Of course, these details get VERY interesting when one would be able to
>program
> DESKWORK apps.
Yup ;-)
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: the ultimate OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:51:43 GMT
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:28:46 GMT, Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>Crispin Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: On the contrary; here our enterprising essayist :-) has actually
>: stumbled across something. Consider the Synthesis Kernel (Massalin and
>: Pu SOSP'89, etc.]. Synthesis had a run-time code generator in the OS
>: that would emit code specific to applications being run at the time.
>: This specialized code could be viewed as "caching" the state of the
>: system it is to support. There was one particularly brilliant example
>: where the ready queue was implemented as a "linked list" comprised of
>: chunks of code that would jump directly from one control block to the
>: next, instead of having a scheduler traverse and "interpret" the ready
>: queue.
>
>I propose expanding this and integrating it into the OS.. imho
>it has not been explored and will have very powerful benefits..
>again, though, I freely admit I don't have the implementation
If it "hasn't been explored then":
a) What do you call Cowan's research? Evidently it must not represent
an exploration of the concept.
b) What evidence can you muster to support your contention that the idea
is actually of benefit ("will have very powerful benefits")? If it
hasn't been explored, then nobody knows if it is of any value or not.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Scott)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAOs: Much to do about nothing?
Date: 17 Jun 1999 12:07:34 GMT
Reply-To: Gordon Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paolo Torelli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Guys? I was trying to be serious... and all the comments I get are about
: a trivial example which has almost no relevance to the discussion.
: If my posts are that dumb, I'd rather like someone to say "they're
: dumb", and please include a reason.
I'm sorry, that was my fault and I really didn't mean to trivialise
or imply the post was dumb. My humour just got the better of me.
[kind-of seriously for sceptical followers up, think lozenge shaped beds,
but don't post, Poalo's perhaps right to be a little annoyed]
--
Gordon Scott Opinions expressed are my own.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (official) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (backdoor)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) http://www.apis.demon.co.uk
Linux ............... Because I like to _get_ there today.
------------------------------
From: "dooil song" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: defined option in socket.h
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 21:59:46 +0900
in free bsd, /usr/include/sys/socket.h has
option ,"#define SO_SNDTIMEO 0x1005 /* send timeout */"
but, my linux kernel 2.2.9 does not have.....it...
personally i need above option.....
if you know this... plz, email me....
my email-addr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Andrew Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SCSI CDDA Commands
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:06:15 +0100
Hi everyone,
I asked this question in the SCSI newsgroup and they basically didn't have a
clue really so I am hoping someone in here will be able to help me.
Basically I need to extract Audio from SCSI cd-rom drives but unfortunately
i am having huge problems with incompatibility and generally working out
which CDDA command to send to which make/model of CD-ROM drive.
Does anyone out there have all the info I need to extract audio from cd-rom
drives. If you do have that info then could you please help me out because I
need to be able to write audio extraction software for this Audio system I
am having to write.
Hope someone can help
Thanks
Andy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mumford)
Subject: Re: smp latentcy - measure and post please.
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:54:03 GMT
A while ago, Gianni Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> begot:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
>Linux SMP users, please take the time to run this code and post the
>results.
>
>I'm especially interested in seeing if a XEON system makes any
>substantial difference.
>
>Note that this code will hog both CPU's for ~11 seconds on a 450Mhz
>cpu, longer
>on lower frequency CPU's and less on higher frequency CPU's. You should
>only
>run this on machines that are basically idle as otherwise 1. the results
>you get will
>be bad and 2. you'll disrupt others using the system when you hog two
>CPU's.
[snip]
>Having said that, please run and post these results:
motherboard: Tyan Tiger S1832DL
CPU: Dual Celery 300A
CPU clock: 450 (overclocked)
OS vers: Mandrake 6.0/kernel 2.2.10
cpulat-output:
Run 1:
diff = 226
odiff = 176
diff = 208
odiff = 175
diff = 136
odiff = 164
diff = 179
odiff = 201
diff = 175
odiff = 164
diff = 222
odiff = 177
diff = 181
odiff = 134
diff = 137
odiff = 177
diff = 158
odiff = 175
--
Run 2:
diff = 157
odiff = 207
diff = 159
odiff = 160
diff = 159
odiff = 134
diff = 188
odiff = 135
diff = 213
odiff = 177
diff = 171
odiff = 131
diff = 201
odiff = 132
diff = 192
odiff = 148
diff = 172
odiff = 177
--
Run 3:
diff = 181
odiff = 175
diff = 158
odiff = 197
diff = 173
odiff = 166
diff = 174
odiff = 8288
diff = 158
odiff = 136
diff = 139
odiff = 191
diff = 259
odiff = 242
diff = 221
odiff = 134
diff = 213
odiff = 182
--
Glenn Lamb - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Finger for my PGP Key.
Email to me must have my address in either the To: or Cc: field. All other
mail will be bounced automatically as spam.
PGPprint = E3 0F DE CC 94 72 D1 1A 2D 2E A9 08 6B A0 CD 82
------------------------------
From: Jun Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: HELP: How to get the current process table of the system?
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:12:53 -0300
I have a program needs to know if another process is running, I wonder
if there is a function to read the current process table of the system
so that I can check if that particular process is running?
Your help is appreciated.
Jun Yang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dr H. T. Leung)
Subject: Re: SCSI CDDA Commands
Date: 17 Jun 1999 15:21:26 GMT
A fairly stable and usable software called cdda2wav is already in existence, for
your purpose. It uses Schilly's SCSI transport libraries and basically can talk
to any cd drive that the Schilly's library can talk to - ie. any of them that are
supported by cdrecord.
ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/cdrecord/
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Andrew Clark"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> Hi everyone,
|>
|> I asked this question in the SCSI newsgroup and they basically didn't have a
|> clue really so I am hoping someone in here will be able to help me.
|>
|> Basically I need to extract Audio from SCSI cd-rom drives but unfortunately
|> i am having huge problems with incompatibility and generally working out
|> which CDDA command to send to which make/model of CD-ROM drive.
|>
|> Does anyone out there have all the info I need to extract audio from cd-rom
|> drives. If you do have that info then could you please help me out because I
|> need to be able to write audio extraction software for this Audio system I
|> am having to write.
|>
|> Hope someone can help
|>
|> Thanks
|>
|> Andy
|>
|>
--
--------------------------------------------------
"What you don't care cannot hurt you." Chap. 7a, AMS-NS
--
--------------------------------------------------
"What you don't care cannot hurt you." Chap. 7a, AMS-NS
------------------------------
From: Tim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Unresolved symbol: bad_user_access_length
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:53:50 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============D010A2FB898EEC3546D2D0A8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'm trying to do some module development, using the "Linux Device
Drivers" book as a guide. My kernel is 2.0.36 (RH 5.2).
My problem: when I use the function memcpy_tofs(), and then try to
insmod the resulting module, I get an undefined symbol
"bad_user_access_length". Sure enough, if you look at the inlines in
asm/segment.h, this function is indeed referenced. The function itself
appears in kernel/panic.c.
Why isn't my reference to this function being resolved? What am I doing
wrong? Surely I'm not the only person trying to use memcpy_tofs in a
module?
Questions of curiosity...what determines if a symbol which is defined in
the kernel sources gets exported to ksyms? For example, why is the
function "panic" (from kernel/panic.c) exported to /proc/ksyms, but the
function bad_user_access_length (also in kernel/panic.c) is not
exported? Also, why are the symbol names in /proc/ksyms munged (for
example, panic becomes panic_R01075bf0).
Thanks for any help.
==============D010A2FB898EEC3546D2D0A8
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="ctw024.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Tim Wilson
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="ctw024.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Wilson;Tim
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Motorola Labs
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Member of the Technical Staff
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Tim Wilson
end:vcard
==============D010A2FB898EEC3546D2D0A8==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 16 Jun 1999 17:18:15 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> this whole thread is starting to remind me of a saying I first
> devised when I started to discover how often others hard work is
> p***ed on when announced on usenet etc.. making me think the basic
> purpose of Usenet/cyberspace is the endless, unfair picking criticism
> of others work..
Think of it this way. Say you walk into a room full of physicists.
You start telling people that modern physics research has it all wrong;
what people really need to be concentrating on is an overarching theory
of how gravity, magnetism and other various forces work together at the
subatomic level. They must all be connected, after all.
Occupants of the room, nonplussed, say "Oh, the Grand Unified Theory?
You too. What approaches were *you* considering?"
Of course, then it comes out that you have had only one college-level
physics class and really don't know much more about the GUT than you
just spouted, but nonetheless you believe it is important, should be
discovered, and the rest is details.
The rest of the room might be forgiven, under the circumstances, for
either (a) ignoring you or (b) pointing out that you are not
contributing anything useful to discuss, not surprising since you don't
really know what you are talking about.
Then assume you stay in the room, arguing around in circles about
whether you do or don't have a clue what you are talking about, and
whether that has any bearing on your right to be heard by the experts
who do know what they are talking about. If you stay in that tack, is
it really surprising when the physicists start calling you arrogant,
clueless and obnoxious?
> (and to all the bitter ingrates..
Ungrateful for what?
> hahaha! have a nice life. my consolation for all your p***ing on my
> work is the thought that you will never be happy. hehehe)
I don't know what sort of arrogance could make you think my happiness
has anything whatsoever to do with anything you do or say.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen)
Subject: Re: ftape4.02 with new kernel 2.2.5-15 (almost)
Date: 16 Jun 1999 22:42:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Huib Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| This file contains the lines:
|
| /lib/modules/2.2.5-15/misc/ftape.o:
| /lib/modules/2.2.5-15/misc/zftape.o: /lib/modules/2.2.5-15/misc/ftape.o
|
| So zftape.o depends on ftape.o.
|
| Now I try to load these two modules:
|
| /sbin/insmod ftape.o
| /sbin/insmod zftape.o
|
| Loading the first module works fine. But loading the second it complains
| about "unresolvved symbols". However, these symbolds ARE resolved since
| these are present in ftape.o.
|
| Anyone can help? What am I doing wrong when loading the modules?
Using insmod. Try 'modprobe zftape' and see if all your problems go
away. Since there's a tool for loading dependent modules use it.
Note: if you still get missing symbols, they are really missing, or you
have the dependancies wrong.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
The Internet is not the fountain of youth, but some days it feels like
the fountain of immaturity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen)
Subject: Re: Can Linux Boot and Run without a BIOS?
Date: 16 Jun 1999 22:48:52 GMT
In article <7k5cak$jaj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Can Linux boot from chaos and run, without a BIOS?
In theory? Sure. But you need something to load the kernel image into
memory and jump to it. This is usually done by loading LILO part1 which
uses the BIOS to load LILO part 2, which loads the kernel. Also, there
are boot from net ROMs for many NICs, but they are started by the BIOS,
too.
Once the kernel is up it doesn't use the BIOS for i/o, but I think you
may have to tell it not to read the config info the BIOS normally
provides. I haven't looked at that in several years (1.3.x days), so my
memory is way fuzzy.
Seems to me someone posted about a boot ROM which just copied the kernel
image into RAM and jumped, in regard to an embedded app. You might
search on embedded and see if you get hits.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
The Internet is not the fountain of youth, but some days it feels like
the fountain of immaturity.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
