Re: [uml-devel] tls: set_thread_area failed

2005-12-10 Thread Rob Landley
On Friday 09 December 2005 12:39, Antoine Martin wrote: > > > Is this glibc? Any ideas? > > > > Yes, I see that on Debian Sarge too. Don't ask me why fsck uses thread, > > but it seems to do that. > > I wasn't even thinking about that! So true, why on earth would fsck > require threading!? fsck -

Re: [uml-devel] tls: set_thread_area failed

2005-12-10 Thread Antoine Martin
> > > Also, different glibc are more or less happy in using modify_ldt() rather > > > than set_thread_area() - it seems that latter is better. > > > Ahh, is it planned > What? I was wondering if this was being worked on, (you answered this below) > > or do I have to make heavily modified distro i

Re: [uml-devel] tls: set_thread_area failed

2005-12-10 Thread Blaisorblade
On Friday 09 December 2005 19:39, Antoine Martin wrote: > On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 18:52 +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: > > On Thursday 08 December 2005 03:13, Antoine Martin wrote: > > > I'm still trying to get a regular FC4 image to boot with the latest x86 > > > tls support code. > > > > Mainline kerne