On Monday 10 January 2005 10:21 am, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Does it work with
>./linux root=... init=/bin/sh
>
> ??
Don't have a real partition to mount it on, unless I want to cannibalize the
host system's swap. I could try ubd if you think it would help.
> Rob> couldn't f
On Monday 10 January 2005 09:43 am, Blaisorblade wrote:
> I also think that if the system is idle, Linux could write out the datas
> anyway (I don't know this well, but it's reasonable that the data are
> sync'd after enough time).
>
> Now, your question reduces to only this one:
>
> "Will Linux,
On Monday 10 January 2005 03:48 am, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Did you read second sentence in the bit you just quoted? How, exactly,
> > could I chroot into there and compile stuff if ld isn't there?
>
> Is the permissions on your hostfs tree set correct
I've had reports of this crash from a user who says he experiences this crash
several
times a day. I'm not sure if this is related to another crash which produces no
console output that I've been chasing for a few weeks, or if this is even
related to
UML or a bug in x86.
Host: 2.6.10 w/ SKAS-v7
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Blaisorblade wrote:
| On Monday 10 January 2005 22:52, Frank Sorenson wrote:
|
|>This patch reorders two lines to check a variable for NULL before using
|>the variable.
| Ok, correct and thanks a lot.
|
| Sorry, a little question: against what tree does
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> You think that for_each_cpu() only iterates over online CPU, while you
> should use for_each_online_cpu() for this purpose.
Oops, correct.
Jeff
---
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-ho
You think that for_each_cpu() only iterates over online CPU, while you should
use for_each_online_cpu() for this purpose.
http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/work/current/2.6/2.6.10-mm2/patches/for-each-cpu-akpm
Bye
--
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729
http://
On Monday 10 January 2005 22:52, Frank Sorenson wrote:
> This patch reorders two lines to check a variable for NULL before using
> the variable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Sorenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -Naur linux-2.6.10-mm2.orig/arch/um/drivers/line.c
linux-2.6.10-mm2/arch/um/drivers/line.c
--
This patch reorders two lines to check a variable for NULL before using
the variable.
Signed-off-by: Frank Sorenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Frank
---
Frank Sorenson - KD7TZK
Systems Manager, Computer Science Department
Brigham Yo
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Rob Landley yowled:
> On Sunday 09 January 2005 08:53 pm, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
>> > I wonder if that old hack (deleting the file signalling there's no rush
>> > about writing stuff back to the disk anymore, although it's still your
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Rob" == Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rob> My uclibc system works just fine as long as I chroot into it or
Rob> boot into it with a normal (2.6) linux kernel. It can even
Rob> recompile itself, entirely from source, under itself.
On Saturday 01 January 2005 17:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> if you enable all semaphore locking debuing and such alike, you get a
> warning at uml_console_write calliong __might_sleep with irqs_disabled()
Yes, thanks a lot for reporting it... I've added it to my TODO-list.
in fact uml_console_
On Sunday 09 January 2005 23:06, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Sunday 09 January 2005 01:00 am, Frank Sorenson wrote:
> > I may not be able to answer all your questions, but I may be able to
> > offer a few pointers.
> >
> > For the UML kernel version, the stock 2.6.x kernel is getting better,
> > but st
On Monday 10 January 2005 07:34, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Sunday 09 January 2005 08:53 pm, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > I wonder if that old hack (deleting the file signalling there's no rush
> > > about writing stuff back to the disk anymore, although it'
> Roland McGrath:
>
> o fix bogus ECHILD return from wait* with zombie group leader
>
> I'm not sure this is the fix, but it is possible indeed, given that the
> problem UML triggered was, IIRC, that when it exited, there wasn't a proper
> cleanup of the status, and the process became invisib
peter wrote:
Bodo?
Hi Peter,
sorry, have been off the net for a while.
The patch *really* was quick and dirty (Was in a hurry cause I wanted to send
it before my Xmas holidays). I even forgot to make it apply with "patch -p1"!
Thus, it must be inserted with "patch -p0", then it should apply.
Sorry
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
Did you read second sentence in the bit you just quoted? How, exactly, could
I chroot into there and compile stuff if ld isn't there?
Is the permissions on your hostfs tree set correctly?
Can you execute ld manually?
And again, have you tried with the -bb UM
17 matches
Mail list logo
