> > Is there any easy way to get decent ps output in SKAS0 mode?
>
> No code. And I don't know exactly what's going on, so I must concentrate on
> bugfixes (say "How do I explain to every GCC on the world it can't use the
> stack as it's usual to do, without going to plain ASM, which would make
> t
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 02:13, Rob Landley wrote:
> So I'm trying to play with ifenslave under UML, and my naieve attempt to go
>
> ./linux LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1 eth0=daemon,11:11:11:11:11:11 \
> eth1=daemon,22:22:22:22:22:22 rootfstype=hostfs rw init=/bin/sh
>
> Led to unexpected results th
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 02:17, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 18:48, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 November 2005 01:35, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
> > >
> > > P.S. What on earth is CONFIG_CMDLINE_ON_HOST? It doesn't
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 18:48, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 November 2005 01:35, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
> >
> > P.S. What on earth is CONFIG_CMDLINE_ON_HOST? It doesn't seem to ever be
> > set anywhere, by anything...
>
> Totally unrel
So I'm trying to play with ifenslave under UML, and my naieve attempt to go
./linux LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1 eth0=daemon,11:11:11:11:11:11 \
eth1=daemon,22:22:22:22:22:22 rootfstype=hostfs rw init=/bin/sh
Led to unexpected results that eth0 had a mac addr of 00:00:00:00:00:00.
Eventually, I trac
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 10:13, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Did you ever read Rik van Reil's list of the dumbest patches he's ever
> > seen? This is the first entry in the list:
> >
> > http://www.surriel.com/potm/apr2001.shtml
>
> Sorry I don't see your point, Rob - it's a really different thing.
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 09:56, Blaisorblade wrote:
> But hey, it's (now) standard practice to loopback-mount root_fs images to
> alter them. I've been using linux since less than 3 years (say RedHat 7.3
> was my first distro), though, so I can't remember about before.
Red Hat 5.something here.
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 01:35, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
> P.S. What on earth is CONFIG_CMDLINE_ON_HOST? It doesn't seem to ever be
> set anywhere, by anything...
Totally unrelated. In short, it's TT-only, it implements the old behaviour
(nice
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
> > Why?
>
> Trust me, I wouldn't do this if it were not for a reason. I have no
> intention of marketing this as a general purpose alternative to
> Linux. It's to check Linux for errors.
I just don't understand your potential use case. (I've seen
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 09:46, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:09:06AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > So I don't care about systemcall interception or anything like that,
> >
> > *blink* *blink*
> >
> > Ok, you want user mode linux, but you don't want it to actually run user
> >
On Nov 8, 2005, at 7:43 AM, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:13:19PM -0800, Can Sar wrote:
Do the other threads (particularly the user thread) ever
do something else that would be important?
The user thread doesn't. The IO thread does, if you wish to do IO.
And you can easily dis
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 10:15:06AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 12:53:00PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On 10/30/05, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > If somebody needs a reproduction sequence, I'm happy to oblige. In theory
> > > "mount -t tmpfs /mnt /mnt" sh
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 08:09, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 07 November 2005 23:13, Can Sar wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am trying to make a 1 thread version of UML that does not need to
> > be able to support user level programs.
> Why?
He may well be running Valgrind or something similar (Val
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 16:25, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
> Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Monday 07 November 2005 13:20, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
> >>Blaisorblade wrote:
> >>>On Monday 31 October 2005 05:39, Jeff Dike wrote:
> From: Bodo Stroesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In my opinion there is no reaso
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 16:43, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:13:19PM -0800, Can Sar wrote:
> > Do the other threads (particularly the user thread) ever
> > do something else that would be important?
>
> The user thread doesn't. The IO thread does, if you wish to do IO.
Since h
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:32, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Sunday 06 November 2005 11:18, Blaisorblade wrote:
> In theory the host should get this right, though. What I really want is
> ionice, and I'm under the impression that one of the schedulers made this
> possible a few months back. Dunno
Blaisorblade wrote:
On Monday 07 November 2005 13:20, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Blaisorblade wrote:
On Monday 31 October 2005 05:39, Jeff Dike wrote:
From: Bodo Stroesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Or at least so I think (I must still give a proper look afterwards, and
I'll post patches). Actually
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:09:06AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > So I don't care about systemcall interception or anything like that,
>
> *blink* *blink*
>
> Ok, you want user mode linux, but you don't want it to actually run user
> processes, nor do want it to be able to intercept system calls
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:13:19PM -0800, Can Sar wrote:
> Do the other threads (particularly the user thread) ever
> do something else that would be important?
The user thread doesn't. The IO thread does, if you wish to do IO.
And you can easily dispense with the sigio emulation thread.
> Fur
19 matches
Mail list logo
