Re: [uml-devel] does 3.12.2 breaks UML with "con=xterm" ?

2013-12-01 Thread Toralf Förster
On 12/01/2013 11:20 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > I meant xterm for all consoles but con0... > Such that you can trigger the crash but are still able to see the output. > Not sure if the 2 attached files contains useful info, but here they are: The back trace of a hanging linux process : $>

Re: [uml-devel] does 3.12.2 breaks UML with "con=xterm" ?

2013-12-01 Thread Toralf Förster
On 12/01/2013 11:20 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am Sonntag, 1. Dezember 2013, 11:17:31 schrieb Toralf Förster: >> On 12/01/2013 12:19 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > after another minute now all xterms are away >>> >>> So, it does not crash immediately. >> >> Right, to be precise, just

[uml-devel] [GIT PULL] UML fixes for 3.13-rc3

2013-12-01 Thread Richard Weinberger
Linus, The following changes since commit af91706d5ddecb4a9858cca9e90d463037cfd498: ima: store address of template_fmt_copy in a pointer before calling strsep (2013-11-30 13:09:53 +1100) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rw/uml.git for-li

Re: [uml-devel] x86_64 when mem > 384M loadable modules do not work

2013-12-01 Thread Boaz Harrosh
On 11/28/2013 06:09 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > Does the attached patch fix the issue? > Yes it is good. I'm very grateful. With this I now am able to fully stress the UML Fedora18 and almost not get stuck at all. (stuckness is usually do to stressed system and allocation failing where K

Re: [uml-devel] does 3.12.2 breaks UML with "con=xterm" ?

2013-12-01 Thread Richard Weinberger
Am Sonntag, 1. Dezember 2013, 11:17:31 schrieb Toralf Förster: > On 12/01/2013 12:19 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > >> > after another minute now all xterms are away > > > > So, it does not crash immediately. > > Right, to be precise, just 1 sub-process crashes immediately > > > Please do

Re: [uml-devel] does 3.12.2 breaks UML with "con=xterm" ?

2013-12-01 Thread Toralf Förster
On 12/01/2013 12:19 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> > after another minute now all xterms are away > So, it does not crash immediately. Right, to be precise, just 1 sub-process crashes immediately > Please do not use xterm for con0. Such that we can see the kernel output > after a crash. > M