On Thursday 15 February 2007 18:09, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 11:00:01AM -0500, Jason Lunz wrote:
> > Permit lvm to create logical volumes without crashing UML.
>
> Thanks, this is in my tree.
Hmm, this seems not a _correct_ fix - at least it will be buggy with high
memory (which
On Thursday 15 February 2007 18:01, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:51:23PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Whatever happens, please ensure that the final fix makes it into -stable
> > as well. Jeff's version of this patch wasn't cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Paolo's patch was sent
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:29:28PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> The following could be a suggestion, if max_low_pfn is not used between the
> old and the new moment of assignment (and it seems it is not). This is just
> an idea however:
>
> mem_init:
>
> -max_low_pfn = ...
> /*
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:02:08PM -0500, Jason Lunz wrote:
> I agree - I have only a vague idea about what uml_reserved means.
This is ancient code - after a quick look through it, I think what is
happening is this:
Early in boot, there are both libc and kernel (bootmem) memory
allocation
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:05:56PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Jeff, I verified my patch is _almost_ enough for 2.6.18 for fully booting a
> 32bit UML; on 2.6.18 I had to also add PTRACE_GET/SET_THREAD_AREA (this fix
> was merged in 2.6.19) to avoid tons of TLS errors.
I'm not seeing that. Wit
On Friday 16 February 2007 18:02, Jason Lunz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:29:28PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > The following could be a suggestion, if max_low_pfn is not used between
> > the old and the new moment of assignment (and it seems it is not). This
> > is just an idea however:
>
On Friday 16 February 2007 20:02, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:05:56PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Jeff, I verified my patch is _almost_ enough for 2.6.18 for fully booting
> > a 32bit UML; on 2.6.18 I had to also add PTRACE_GET/SET_THREAD_AREA (this
> > fix was merged in 2.6.19
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:04:35AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Which kernel? I've not yet tested 2.6.20. I'll try debugging this
> subsequently.
2.6.20-rc6-mm3 on 2.6.20 + patches works for me.
Jeff
--
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
