Forgot to say that I have tested with 2.6.11.4 and -bs3, also
2.6.12-rc2. Also attempted 2.6.12-rc2 with development patch but this
won't compile at present as per earlier message.
On 14/04/05, Ian McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> In my continuing saga (which some are becoming
Hi there,
In my continuing saga (which some are becoming familiar with) to get
UML 2.6.x working at all I have been given access to another machine
to develop on and my old machine is going to disappear.
This machine is Debian Sarge with gcc 3.3.5 on an AMD64 with 32 bit
userspace although 64 bit
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 11:27 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:05:43AM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Remember when I talked about making UML and its root filesystem be one
> > file you can just run? Well, I made one as a proof of concept...
> >
> > http://www.landley.ne
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-13 08:50 PST ---
If it's as quiet as the -stable tree and the patches are going upstream then I
might consider just merging it into gentoo-sources instead. Could you please
give me th
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:05:43AM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> Remember when I talked about making UML and its root filesystem be one file
> you can just run? Well, I made one as a proof of concept...
>
> http://www.landley.net/code/firmware/notes.html
Hehe, nice. I've been considering doing t
On Monday 11 April 2005 01:19, Ian McDonald wrote:
> With this patch applied to 2.6.11.7 it is my first kernel that
> compiles straight off :-)
Ok, that's the -bs tree, not the one I announced here (the -devel one) but
it's ok anyway.
> It does not apply one patch because it is already applied whi
slick
--
Jason
When pigs fly, they fly first class.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
Remember when I talked about making UML and its root filesystem be one file
you can just run? Well, I made one as a proof of concept...
http://www.landley.net/code/firmware/notes.html
You have been warned..
How to make a guest machine running more fast ?
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UBD_SYNC =Y or CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UBD_SYNC=N
What´s the best for a uml provider ?
Itamar Reis Peixoto
+55 (34) 3238 3845
e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ispbrasil.com.br
---
SF em
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This trick is useless, because sys_ni.c will handle this problem by itself,
like it does even on UML for other syscalls.
Also, it does not provide the NFSD syscall when NFSD is compiled as a module,
which is a big problem.
This should be merged currently in both 2.6.11-st
dd if=/dev/zero of=root_fs.ext3 bs=1 count=1 seek=40G conv=notrunc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] conacci]# resize2fs -p root_fs.ext3
resize2fs 1.36 (05-Feb-2005)
resize2fs: File too large while trying to determine filesystem size
[EMAIL PROTECTED] conacci]#
how to resize this file ?
Itamar Reis Peixoto
+55 (34
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 16:37, itamar wrote:
> How to make a guest machine running more fast ?
>
>
> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UBD_SYNC =Y or CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UBD_SYNC=N
The second is surely faster but less safe.
> What´s the best for a uml provider ?
For recent (IIRC >= 2.6.9, at least) the difference of perf
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This trick is useless, because sys_ni.c will handle this problem by itself,
like it does even on UML for other syscalls.
Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
clean-linux-2.6.11-paolo/arch/um/kernel/sys_call_table.c |8 +---
1 fil
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This trick is useless, because sys_ni.c will handle this problem by itself,
> like it does even on UML for other syscalls.
> Also, it does not provide the NFSD syscall when NFSD is compiled as a module,
> which is a bi
Remember when I talked about making UML and its root filesystem be one file
you can just run? Well, I made one as a proof of concept...
http://www.landley.net/code/firmware/notes.html
You have been warned...
Rob
---
SF email is sponsored by
14 matches
Mail list logo
