On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 10:19:08PM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 05:02:36PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > That would never make it anywhere near mainline, so you would have a
> > choice of dumping that into every UML pool you build or fixing your
> > filesystems to use the r
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:16:38PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> Are you using UML's hwrng driver? Did it not help?
Unless I've missed something, that doesn't solve the problem for an
out-of-the-box Linux distro, which expects to read from /dev/random.
Paul
We've recently prepared a filesystem image for the latest Debian
distribution, and hit a problem with it hanging on starting Apache2. We
traced this to a lack of entropy to feed /dev/random, causing the
Apache's startssl to block.
Chris Lightfoot has developed this patch to feed the guest's entro
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 07:34:24AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying to boot uml on a server, and I don't want to have to have X
> installed to do it, so I want to boot without the xterm consoles.
>
> For the life if me I can't figure out the right con=* command line params
> and/or ge
[ trimmed cc to just -devel list]
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:49:38PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Paul Warren said that there is a leak in 2.4 UML related to hostfs stuff..
> and
> I already saw this message from some 2.4 recent UMLs. I hope Paul Warren can
> explain what he saw
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 04:13:37PM -0300, itamar wrote:
> In the host I have 512 mb of ram
>
> I am running the guest kernel with mem=256M
>
Do you make significant use of hostfs filesystems?
Paul
---
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Produc
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 11:51:15PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Changes from -bb4 to -bs5:
> * fixed a problem of which probably Paul Warren suffered... UML stopped early
> at boot on a few system... what Bodo Stroesser fixed was a problem when using
> the 2.6 host headers an
[ follow up to -user only ]
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:25:58PM +0530, Adil Mujeeb, Noida wrote:
> what is the use of attaching the host interface in the bridge? Without
> attaching the host interface in the bridge we can simply bring down the host
> interface with ip 0.0.0.0 & assign the host int
