On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 09:01:55PM +0900, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> one more bug report on 2.6.26.2. It looks like .25 is affected as well
> are both suffering from it.
Sigh, I was hoping that this wasn't seen on anything later than 2.6.24.
Any chance it can be bisected? Since this is an overnight
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 08:47:04PM +0900, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> In short statically linking the uml kernel fails with the error below.
> Any idea what may be wrong?
A symbol clash between libc and the kernel. Try this:
Index: linux-2.6.22/arch/um/Makefile
=
Ok Jeff, uml is working fine.
Thank you.
- Roberto
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 01:02:39PM -0300, Roberto Alcântara wrote:
>> Yes, my gcc version is 4.2.3 and I will do what you say.
>
> This patch is in 2.6.26.2 now, so use t
Jeff Dike wrote:
> You can work around this by putting a 0 into /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min_addr.
Permission denied here - looks quite hard readonly on this kernel
even for root.
>> Same here with 2.6.26.2 :(
>
> Hmmm. If it's not a problem there, I'm tempted to call it fixed,
> whatever it was. Ca
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 08:07:20PM +0200, Stanislav Meduna wrote:
> My host is current Ubuntu and I was unable to test 2.6.25.x
> there due to
> Locating the top of the address space ... Address 0x0 no good?
> which AFAIK was a known problem caused by some ubuntu-specific
> patch.
You can work a
Jeff Dike wrote:
> It's not. Any 2.6 UML should run on a any 2.6 host. If you are
> having problems that look like version skew problems, say what they
> are.
My host is current Ubuntu and I was unable to test 2.6.25.x
there due to
Locating the top of the address space ... Address 0x0 no goo
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 01:02:39PM -0300, Roberto Alcântara wrote:
> Yes, my gcc version is 4.2.3 and I will do what you say.
This patch is in 2.6.26.2 now, so use that if you don't feel like
patching 2.6.26.
Jeff
--
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:20:56AM +0200, Stanislav Meduna wrote:
> I tried to isolate the exact version, but I was not able
> to compile/run all the UML versions in my test environment
> (current Ubuntu) - obviously the UML is quite sensitive
> to the host kernel as well.
It's not. Any 2.6 UML s
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 09:09:16AM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> ...I'm not fully sure what's the intention here, ie., whether
> the return belongs to a block with the assignment or not.
Yes, this is confused, although it just happens to compile to
something sane. Your patch is fine, but I think
Jeff Dike wrote:
>> Did this or equivalent patch get into the mainline kernel?
>> Browsing through the source I don't think so :( If not,
>> where is the best place to fetch the UML tree with the
>> patches that the developers seem to find necessary,
>> applied?
>
> It's there. I just eyeballed
10 matches
Mail list logo
