On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 09:44:20PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> I've never used mconsole. Never needed it before.
>
> Perhaps if I attach to a serial console instead of stdio I can send sysrq
> that
> way...
No. Just think a little. Banging on the SysRq key on your keyboard can't
do anything
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:18:27AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> I want to add the int3 too - that's the only way to be deterministically
> sure that GCC doesn't use %ebp after the unmap.
Well, my current patch branches to the int3. gcc will have to be pretty
imaginative to involve ebp in a branc
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 05:20, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Running a kernel which is not 2.6.15-rc2 (but a couple of merges back,
> looking for a place where it works), I get:
> If I try with "mode=tt", (vs skas0) it boots, but on shutdown, I get:
I got it too, and actually I think it's tri
On Thursday 01 December 2005 17:03, Michael Richardson wrote:
> okay, I don't quite understand, but it seemds that -rc2 is okay, but -rc3
> is failing. (-rc2 was failing as far as I could tell on Monday. Maybe I
> wasn't running the kernel I thought I was).
> Using git bisect,
must learn that, y
On Friday 02 December 2005 20:59, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Friday 02 December 2005 21:12, Rob Landley wrote:
> > I don't know how to send sysrq through the stdio console.
>
> uml_mconsole $umid sysrq or "sysrq" at the uml_mconsole $umid prompt? sysrq
> $let is for the $let sysrq.
I've never used m
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 22:00, Antoine Martin wrote:
> > > Is NPTL supported and working? Are there separate patches to be
> >
> > applied
> >
> > > against 2.6.10 kernel?
> >
> > My current patchset, against 2.5.15-rc1, is running current Debian and
> > FC4
> > filesystems without any apparen
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 18:55, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:28:56PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > So, again: can we finally rewrite clone.c in assembly? Or, otherwise, to
> > use a unique assembly macro joining mmap, the return and trap_myself?
>
> I would favor the second, al
On Friday 02 December 2005 21:12, Rob Landley wrote:
> I don't know how to send sysrq through the stdio console.
uml_mconsole $umid sysrq or "sysrq" at the uml_mconsole $umid prompt? sysrq
$let is for the $let sysrq.
> I have a reproducable hang (well, I did this morning and think I can
> recrea
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 18:23, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > "Jeff" == Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jeff> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:37:12PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> Can I second the "send UML patches to Jeff and let him send them on
> >> to Andrew/Linus" ap
I don't know how to send sysrq through the stdio console.
I have a reproducable hang (well, I did this morning and think I can recreate
it). It's gcc 4.0.2 attempting to statically link busybox (the allyesconfig
version), it just goes off into la-la land. left it for an hour and no
progress,
> "Jeff" == Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> I'm sending this mail out to everyone that I can find who has had
Jeff> the UML stubs compiled in unexpected ways, resulting in crashing.
Jeff> I'd like testing of the patch below on as many gcc versions as
Jeff> possible
> "Antoine" == Antoine Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Antoine> Thanks for taking a stab at sorting out this gcc madness. I had
Antoine> to apply it by hand on top of -rc3 (I then tried -rc4 too): (but
Antoine> since no UML patches went into rc4 I guess it's just an offset
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gmane.linux.uml.devel as well.
> "Antoine" == Antoine Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Antoine> Thanks for taking a stab at sorting out this gcc madness. I had
Antoine> to apply it by hand on top of -rc3
On Thursday 01 December 2005 18:13, Jeff Dike wrote:
> I'm sending this mail out to everyone that I can find who has had the UML
> stubs compiled in unexpected ways, resulting in crashing.
>
> I'd like testing of the patch below on as many gcc versions as possible. I
> think this patch avoids the
I'm sending this mail out to everyone that I can find who has had the UML
stubs compiled in unexpected ways, resulting in crashing.
I'd like testing of the patch below on as many gcc versions as possible. I
think this patch avoids the fundamental issue which is behind this, namely
gcc using the s
15 matches
Mail list logo
