On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 04:53:43PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Do you really mean "tap112"? Nobody I think tried this.
I have :-) Read The Book (and BTW, I need to figure out a way to get you
a copy).
> If this were, say, a buffer overflow, or a bug because tap112 does not exist,
> the source
Hi,
> > ./um2.6.16.27-bb1 ubd0=root_fs ubd1=swap_fs eth0=tuntap,tap112
>
> Do you really mean "tap112"?
Yes, Sir.
> Nobody I think tried this. > I've checked
> for bugs in parsing, but there is none. Please give more details and
> try a saner setting, or elaborate on the reason of this strang
On Monday 07 August 2006 23:13, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 05:44:31PM +0200, Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
wrote:
> > I had this patch in my queue since some time, because it fixes some
> > spinlocks vs sleeps issues; please verify whether after your
> > restructuring it is still
On Thursday 17 August 2006 12:56, Peter Hovorka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeff told me to drop a note here about the following occurence:
>
> Having compiled a 2.6.16.27 guest kernel with a bb1 patchset, I was
> unable to bring up an eth0 via tun/tap. The kernel runs well, but a
> command line of
>
> ./um2.
