> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# /vbin/kernel/2.6.11-rc3-mm2-aio
> > Checking for /proc/mm...found
> > Checking for the skas3 patch in the host...found
> > Checking PROT_EXEC mmap in /tmp...OK
>
> Does this have my exception-table patch in it?
>
> Jeff
Yes. This is the same UML kernel I had trouble w
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# /vbin/kernel/2.6.11-rc3-mm2-aio
> Checking for /proc/mm...found
> Checking for the skas3 patch in the host...found
> Checking PROT_EXEC mmap in /tmp...OK
Does this have my exception-table patch in it?
Jeff
-
> I just rolled a 2.6.11-rc4+cfq-ts-21 host kernel and I'll be testing this
> today.
2.6.11 doesn't seem to be ready for host duty yet:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# uname -a
Linux host27.linode.com 2.6.11-rc4-1-bigmem64 #1 SMP Mon Feb 14 15:55:09 EST
2005
i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
[EMAIL
FYI: Been testing this pretty heavily. Seems great -- decided to move it into
production yesterday. It's now running on 10 hosts, and I'm happy to report
all is
well.
I just rolled a 2.6.11-rc4+cfq-ts-21 host kernel and I'll be testing this today.
Thanks!
-Chris
Nick Piggin wrote:
Your one liner would fix the problem too, of course. The important
thing at this stage is that it gets fixed for 2.6.11.
Sorry, have been off the net last week.
Thank you for the patches. Have tested Ingo's one liner.
It works fine for me, as expected.
Bodo
--
Okay, there's the initial bootup path, IRQs, page faults, and syscalls. Are
there any other entry points to the kernel that I'm not thinking of?
---
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT
Hi,
I get a few Debug messages of the form from UML:
Debug: sleeping function called from invalid context at
include/asm/arch/semaphore.h:107
in_atomic():0, irqs_disabled():1
Call Trace:
087d77b0: [<0809aaa5>] __might_sleep+0x135/0x180
087d77d8: [<084d377f>] mcount+0xf/0x20
087d77e0: [<0807cc1
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 17:22 -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Why not simply disable CONFIG_GCOV for him, in this case?
>
> Anton presumably turned on CONFIG_GCOV because he wanted to do some
> profiling...
Yes. I finally found a way to get it to compile. Compiling without
