Linux-Development-Sys Digest #299
Linux-Development-Sys Digest #299, Volume #8 Sat, 25 Nov 00 05:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Can't find regcmp command (Nix)
Re: Packet ordering (Nix)
Re: What distro does Linus Torvalds use? (Nix)
Re: Interprocess Communication ... (Nix)
Re: Interprocess Communication ... (Nix)
Re: Runtime file size modifying (Nix)
Re: Research survey on cross platform development (Nix)
Re: linux software-interupt open file? (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: Runtime file size modifying (Alexander Viro)
Re: Modconf doesn't find any modules (kernel 2.4.0-test10) (Allin Cottrell)
Re: Database in Redhat Linux (Victor Wagner)
linux operating system installable files (nitin sharma)
Re: Linux on mainframe (Pete Zaitcev)
Re: [Q] How to get the Ethernet address ? ("Paul Pluzhnikov")
Re: Software RAID (John Nelson)
Re: rdtsc() timestamps synchronized between SMP CPU's? (Philip Armstrong)
Problem: sigaction with SI_SIGINFO flag (Petr Bavorovsky)
Re: Linux on mainframe ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Can't find regcmp command
Date: 24 Nov 2000 23:16:41 +
Josef Moellers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> work on "regex_t"s, which are complex structures contianing more than
> just the precompiled pattern, e.g. the "Syntax setting with which the
> pattern was compiled".
Ah, Emacs. ;)
--
`The phrase `causes storage to be reserved', doesn't mean that it causes
storage to be reserved. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of
Standardeze.' --- Mike Stump on the GCC list
--
From: Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Packet ordering
Date: 24 Nov 2000 23:12:33 +
Ed Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have noticed that when a fragmented ping is sent to a linux system,
> it is returned in reverse order (ie last fragment first). Is there a
> way to force linux to return the packets in the order received?
Why on earth do you care? This trick allows some fairly useful
optimizations.
--
`The phrase `causes storage to be reserved', doesn't mean that it causes
storage to be reserved. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of
Standardeze.' --- Mike Stump on the GCC list
--
From: Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: What distro does Linus Torvalds use?
Date: 24 Nov 2000 23:21:57 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen) writes:
> Wish there was a Slackware like that, the upgrading is only so
> automatable.
There is. It's called `Debian'.
HTH. ;}
--
`The phrase `causes storage to be reserved', doesn't mean that it causes
storage to be reserved. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of
Standardeze.' --- Mike Stump on the GCC list
--
From: Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Interprocess Communication ...
Date: 24 Nov 2000 23:24:43 +
Kaelin Colclasure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > 1. POSIX Message Queues
> > 2. POSIX Shared Memory
> > 3. POSIX Semaphores.
> > 4. Mutex that can be shared across PROCESSES.
> >
> >Any help in this direction will be greatly appreciated.
>
> All of the above. Collectively these are known as "System V IPC."
Wrong-o. sysvipc != POSIX IPC.
Linux does not as of the 2.2 kernel series support the mq_*(), sem_() or
shm_*() functions --- but this may well not be true of Linux-2.4 (I
can't remember whether it's been implemented there yet).
--
`The phrase `causes storage to be reserved', doesn't mean that it causes
storage to be reserved. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of
Standardeze.' --- Mike Stump on the GCC list
--
From: Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Interprocess Communication ...
Date: 24 Nov 2000 23:25:45 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen) writes:
> AFAIK only the SvyV versions of these are available. Without a
> standard in fromt of me I can't remember how they differ. This question
> comes up from time to time, and the only time I looked into it, I had
> the impression that the functionality is the same, but the calling
> sequences are different.
The APIs of the POSIX variants are nicer, and they return fds, so you
can select on them and so forth.
i.e. they're SysVIPC as they should have been implemented all along.
--
`The phrase `causes storage to be reserved', doesn't mean that it causes
storage to be reserved. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of
Standardeze.' --- Mike Stump on the GCC list
--
From: Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Runtime file size modifyi
Linux-Development-Sys Digest #299
Linux-Development-Sys Digest #299, Volume #6 Mon, 18 Jan 99 09:14:31 EST
Contents:
Re: 2.2.0pre7 dowsnt load modules (Frank Hale)
Kernel 2.0.36 bug: initrd incompatible with UMSDOS root file system (Dick Repasky)
Re: KERNEL 2.0.36 - Unable to open an initial console (Dick Repasky)
Re: IPMasquerading / SSH
Re: pre7 and 3dfx/glide/Mesa ("Frank T. Lofaro")
Re: - deprecated - why? (Josef Moellers)
Re: WDM Emulator, anyone? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Incompatibility with header files net/if.h and linux/netdevice.h (Villy Kruse)
Re: INT13 disk driver (Villy Kruse)
Red Hat problem (Mike Doland)
How can I tell if a kernel module is loaded from within kernel code? (Ronald S.
Kundla Jr.)
Re: virtualizing i386-linux (Robert Kaiser)
Re: Telephony and Linux (Gordon Scott)
Re: Secuity hole with perl (suidperl) and nosuid mounts on Linux (Matt Sergeant)
Re: INT13 disk driver (Andreas Mohr)
Re: Kernel 2.0.35 - Kernel 2.0.36 (Jan Andres)
Re: A Call To Arms (Ancipital)
Re: A Call To Arms (Francisco =?iso-8859-1?Q?Cola=E7o?=)
Linux unchanged for over two years...?! (Mark Tranchant)
2.2.0-pre7 and APM - system clock loses time! (Chris Rankin)
From: Frank Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.2.0pre7 dowsnt load modules
Date: 18 Jan 1999 05:35:14 GMT
Staffan Nilsson wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I know this problem, or similar ones, have been discussed already, but I
> still have no luck running 2.2.0pre7 on a standard redhat 5.2
> installation. The problem is that the kernel doesnt load any modules,
> and therefore is rather useless. I tried installing modutils 2.1.121
> from rahide, but they didnt would (see previous discussion). Someone
> suggested getting the source rpm and recompiling,so I did. It compiled
> fine, but after installation, my standard 2.0.36 kernel didnt find its
> modules. I didnt even bother trying to run 2.2.0.
>
> So now I am back to the old standard 2.0.36.
>
> Can anybody help?
>
> /Staffan
Post all of the error messages from /var/log/messages, dmesg, give us
all the messages you can so we can help you. I have just been through
this last week and I am feeling pretty confident that if I can figure it
out maybe I can help you figure it out.
--
From: Frank Hale
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 7205161
Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/frankhale/
Jade: http://jade.netpedia.net/
"Excuse my english I went to a US public school"
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dick Repasky)
Subject: Kernel 2.0.36 bug: initrd incompatible with UMSDOS root file system
Date: 18 Jan 1999 06:27:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use of an initrd image during bootup foils use of an UMSDOS root file
system. After the linuxrc script returns, the root file system is
successfully mounted as an umsdos file system, but the umsdos file
system code fails to recognize that the file system being mounted is a
root file system and fails to implement the pseudo_root operation.
My experimental evidence is as follows:
First, I edited /usr/src/linux/fs/umsdos/inode.c so that all flavors
of printk in UMSDOS_read_super were active (changed them to printk),
and recompiled the kernel.
After recompilation, UMSDOS_read_super made no effort to perform the
pseudo root operation if I made use of an initrd image.
UMSDOS_read_super successfully performed the pseudo_root operation
if I did not make use of the initrd image.
This is the first time that I've ever looked at any kernel source
code, so I have absolutely no idea how to fix the problem.
Dick
--
Remove the underscore from my e-mail address to reply by mail.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dick Repasky)
Subject: Re: KERNEL 2.0.36 - Unable to open an initial console
Date: 18 Jan 1999 06:25:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Although file groups and permissions were terribly wrong in my first
post, it was actually a problem with the umsdos file system that
brought down the boot process. I've posted a bug report to this
group.
On 18 Jan 1999 03:50:31 GMT, Dick Repasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's really embarassing when I post something and then figure out
>the answer. How about those file permissions, eh?
>
>Dick
>
>--
>
>Remove the underscore from my e-mail address to reply by mail.
--
Remove the underscore from my e-mail address to reply by mail.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: IPMasquerading / SSH
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 06:28:35 GMT
Thanks for the pointers all; I've been having this problem, and
couldn't really figure out why...
mumford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: # ipfwadm -M -s 7200 0 0
: changes the TCP timeout to 7200 seconds (2 hours), and doesn't touch the
: TCPFIN a
