Hi all,
For the last couple of days, I have been trying to set
up linux kernel under 8MB. So far I have set up a linux 2.4.31, which
just works under 8MB. However, I would be grateful if someone could
help with the following queries
a) Is linux2.4 just the right option?
Hi all,
For the last couple of days, I have been trying to set
up linux kernel under 8MB. So far I have set up a linux 2.4.31, which
just works under 8MB. However, I would be grateful if someone could
help with the following queries
a) Is linux2.4 just the right option?
Never mind, I was missing something really simple.
On 4/15/05, Imanpreet Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am a bit confused about the TSS. The documentation says that it
> includes 3 fields SS0, SS1 and SS2 for privilige levels 0, 1, 2
> respectively. And a
Hello,
I am a bit confused about the TSS. The documentation says that it
includes 3 fields SS0, SS1 and SS2 for privilige levels 0, 1, 2
respectively. And are set up when a task is first created, I can't
figure out why these fields are necessary. I think that these fileds
are necessary when we
Hello,
I am a bit confused about the TSS. The documentation says that it
includes 3 fields SS0, SS1 and SS2 for privilige levels 0, 1, 2
respectively. And are set up when a task is first created, I can't
figure out why these fields are necessary. I think that these fileds
are necessary when we
Never mind, I was missing something really simple.
On 4/15/05, Imanpreet Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am a bit confused about the TSS. The documentation says that it
includes 3 fields SS0, SS1 and SS2 for privilige levels 0, 1, 2
respectively. And are set up when a task
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:36:58 +0530, Hong Kong Phoey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RTFM
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:36:58 +0530, Hong Kong Phoey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RTFM
I don't mind RTFM but do you care to provide the M. That is if you have any.
--
Imanpreet Singh Arora
-
To
Hello,
I came across
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/glibcthreads.html
It seems to arouse a bit of confusion. _FIRST_ it says that scheduler
activations are BAD. Then it delves on the possible implementation of
Scheduler activations in Linux. Though I know that
Hello,
I came across
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/glibcthreads.html
It seems to arouse a bit of confusion. _FIRST_ it says that scheduler
activations are BAD. Then it delves on the possible implementation of
Scheduler activations in Linux. Though I know that
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:36:58 +0530, Hong Kong Phoey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RTFM
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:36:58 +0530, Hong Kong Phoey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RTFM
I don't mind RTFM but do you care to provide the M. That is if you have any.
--
Imanpreet Singh Arora
-
To unsubscribe from
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:28:42 -0500, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:57 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
>
> > This has been a doubt for a couple of days, and I am wondering if this
> > one could also be cleared. When you say kernel
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:13:20 -0500, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:34 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
>
> > I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
> > thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love
Hello
I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love mentions that it is kept
at the "lowest" kernel address in case of x86 based platform. Could
anyone answer these questions.
a) When a stack is resized, is the
Hello
I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love mentions that it is kept
at the lowest kernel address in case of x86 based platform. Could
anyone answer these questions.
a) When a stack is resized, is the thread_struct
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:13:20 -0500, Robert Love [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:34 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love mentions that it is kept
at the lowest
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:28:42 -0500, Robert Love [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:57 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
This has been a doubt for a couple of days, and I am wondering if this
one could also be cleared. When you say kernel stack, can't be resized
Hi guys,
I got this mail from _someone_ asking me for help on /proc/gcov, I
guess he did not know about lkml. Since I don't know about modules in
linux. I thought of forwarding the mail on to you.
-- Forwarded message --
From: prashanth M D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Hi guys,
I got this mail from _someone_ asking me for help on /proc/gcov, I
guess he did not know about lkml. Since I don't know about modules in
linux. I thought of forwarding the mail on to you.
-- Forwarded message --
From: prashanth M D [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:
18 matches
Mail list logo
