On Friday 22 April 2005 03:32, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 03:27:50PM +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Here are the patches (tarball attached), that I've applied to
UML 2.6.11 + incrementals, before adding s390-files.
These patches are tested a bit on x86, but not on x86_64.
The
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 04:44:37PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
The patch moving add_arg() was *before* the os-* work, so you might move (if
needed, which I don't know) it again to os-Linux/util.c if you want (which
didn't exist at that time). It came from arch/um/kernel/user_util.c, in fact.
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 03:27:50PM +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Here are the patches (tarball attached), that I've applied to
UML 2.6.11 + incrementals, before adding s390-files.
These patches are tested a bit on x86, but not on x86_64.
The COMMAND_LINE_SIZE patch was required because this was
Bastian Blank wrote:
But anyway, this errno is internal. So there exists
no host's ERESTARTNOINTR.
As Blaisorblade pointed out, ptrace interface also is
part of the ABI. User programs using ptrace *can* see
ERESTARTNOINTR and all the other ERESTART.
So there exists host's ERESTARTNOINTR, but
Blaisorblade wrote:
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 21:26, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Currently they are the same for 2.4 and 2.6, but worst case that might
change in future versions.
Yes maybe in principle, however the errno values are part of the ABI.
I agree.
Only debugger could note this, as
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 03:27:50PM +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Here are the patches (tarball attached), that I've applied to
UML 2.6.11 + incrementals, before adding s390-files.
These patches are tested a bit on x86, but not on x86_64.
I merged these, except for the
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 03:27:50PM +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Here are the patches (tarball attached), that I've applied to
UML 2.6.11 + incrementals, before adding s390-files.
These patches are tested a bit on x86, but not on x86_64.
I merged these, except for the restartnointr one because
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 03:27:50PM +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Here are the patches (tarball attached), that I've applied to
UML 2.6.11 + incrementals, before adding s390-files.
These patches are tested a bit on x86, but not on x86_64.
I merged these, except for the
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 20:57, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 03:27:50PM +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Here are the patches (tarball attached), that I've applied to
UML 2.6.11 + incrementals, before adding s390-files.
These patches are tested a bit on x86,
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:35:58PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
I merged these, except for the restartnointr one because I don't have
ERESTARTNOINTR in my /usr/include, inside a #ifdef KERNEL or not.
2.6.11 shows:
| $ grep ERESTARTNOINTR -r .
| ./linux/errno.h:#define ERESTARTNOINTR 513
And it is
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 21:16, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:35:58PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
I merged these, except for the restartnointr one because I don't have
ERESTARTNOINTR in my
Please note:
/usr/include
, inside a #ifdef KERNEL or not.
2.6.11 shows:
| $
Blaisorblade wrote:
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 20:57, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 03:27:50PM +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Here are the patches (tarball attached), that I've applied to
UML 2.6.11 + incrementals, before adding s390-files.
These patches are tested a
Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:35:58PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
I merged these, except for the restartnointr one because I don't have
ERESTARTNOINTR in my /usr/include, inside a #ifdef KERNEL or not.
2.6.11 shows:
| $ grep ERESTARTNOINTR -r .
| ./linux/errno.h:#define
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 22:02, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:33:56PM +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Bastian Blank wrote:
| Mail-Followup-To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Please fix your MUA.
TX for the info, but sorry, I guess you missunderstood. We
14 matches
Mail list logo
