On Tuesday 15 November 2005 05:39, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > I.e. "shutdown now" without -h? Halt without poweroff?
>
> halt without poweroff.
>
> stops the scheduler, but interrupts etc continues running.
>
> but it's not something I'd recommend relying
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
I.e. "shutdown now" without -h? Halt without poweroff?
halt without poweroff.
stops the scheduler, but interrupts etc continues running.
but it's not something I'd recommend relying upon. Better to leave the
scheduler running but only have an init pr
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Nix wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] moaned:
> > On Monday 14 November 2005 14:59, Nix wrote:
> >> I've long wanted to do the same sort of thing,
> >> the kernel keeps
> >> processing network packets and firewalling and bridging them perfectly
> >> well, but att
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] moaned:
> On Monday 14 November 2005 14:59, Nix wrote:
>> I've long wanted to do the same sort of thing,
>
> I guess you would like to run userspace processes or at least to call libUML
> to configure something (but I don't think you can ask a kernel to do s
On Monday 14 November 2005 14:59, Nix wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Jeff Dike prattled cheerily:
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:09:06AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> > So I don't care about systemcall interception or anything like that,
> >>
> >> *blink* *blink*
> >>
> >> Ok, you want user mode li
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Jeff Dike prattled cheerily:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:09:06AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>> > So I don't care about systemcall interception or anything like that,
>>
>> *blink* *blink*
>>
>> Ok, you want user mode linux, but you don't want it to actually run user
>> proce
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
(Wow, sourceforge's mailing list archives are almost as difficult to use as
their download mirror system. That takes _effort_.)
There is other mirrors more easily navigated.. my preference is MARC:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=user-mode-linux-devel&r
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 22:18, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:18:58PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > 1) Is there any documentation on SKAS0's design? (A couple things
> > floated by, but it was piecemeal and I didn't have the necessary
> > context.)
>
> There was a big message
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 22:07, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:35:47PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Jeff was going to split out the scheduler and filesystem into shared
> > libraries or some such. He mentions it in his intermittent diary, among
> > other places.
>
> This has n
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:18:58PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> 1) Is there any documentation on SKAS0's design? (A couple things floated
> by,
> but it was piecemeal and I didn't have the necessary context.)
There was a big message when I first announced it. Also, the changelog on
that patch w
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:35:47PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> Jeff was going to split out the scheduler and filesystem into shared
> libraries
> or some such. He mentions it in his intermittent diary, among other places.
This has nothing to do with that.
One of my other future projects is em
> > Is there any easy way to get decent ps output in SKAS0 mode?
>
> No code. And I don't know exactly what's going on, so I must concentrate on
> bugfixes (say "How do I explain to every GCC on the world it can't use the
> stack as it's usual to do, without going to plain ASM, which would make
> t
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 02:17, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 18:48, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 November 2005 01:35, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
> > >
> > > P.S. What on earth is CONFIG_CMDLINE_ON_HOST? It doesn't
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 18:48, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 November 2005 01:35, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
> >
> > P.S. What on earth is CONFIG_CMDLINE_ON_HOST? It doesn't seem to ever be
> > set anywhere, by anything...
>
> Totally unrel
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 10:13, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Did you ever read Rik van Reil's list of the dumbest patches he's ever
> > seen? This is the first entry in the list:
> >
> > http://www.surriel.com/potm/apr2001.shtml
>
> Sorry I don't see your point, Rob - it's a really different thing.
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 01:35, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
> P.S. What on earth is CONFIG_CMDLINE_ON_HOST? It doesn't seem to ever be
> set anywhere, by anything...
Totally unrelated. In short, it's TT-only, it implements the old behaviour
(nice
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:44, Can Sar wrote:
> > Why?
>
> Trust me, I wouldn't do this if it were not for a reason. I have no
> intention of marketing this as a general purpose alternative to
> Linux. It's to check Linux for errors.
I just don't understand your potential use case. (I've seen
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 09:46, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:09:06AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > So I don't care about systemcall interception or anything like that,
> >
> > *blink* *blink*
> >
> > Ok, you want user mode linux, but you don't want it to actually run user
> >
On Nov 8, 2005, at 7:43 AM, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:13:19PM -0800, Can Sar wrote:
Do the other threads (particularly the user thread) ever
do something else that would be important?
The user thread doesn't. The IO thread does, if you wish to do IO.
And you can easily dis
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 08:09, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 07 November 2005 23:13, Can Sar wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am trying to make a 1 thread version of UML that does not need to
> > be able to support user level programs.
> Why?
He may well be running Valgrind or something similar (Val
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 16:43, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:13:19PM -0800, Can Sar wrote:
> > Do the other threads (particularly the user thread) ever
> > do something else that would be important?
>
> The user thread doesn't. The IO thread does, if you wish to do IO.
Since h
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:09:06AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > So I don't care about systemcall interception or anything like that,
>
> *blink* *blink*
>
> Ok, you want user mode linux, but you don't want it to actually run user
> processes, nor do want it to be able to intercept system calls
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:13:19PM -0800, Can Sar wrote:
> Do the other threads (particularly the user thread) ever
> do something else that would be important?
The user thread doesn't. The IO thread does, if you wish to do IO.
And you can easily dispense with the sigio emulation thread.
> Fur
On Nov 7, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
On Monday 07 November 2005 23:13, Can Sar wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to make a 1 thread version of UML that does not need to
be able to support user level programs.
Why?
Trust me, I wouldn't do this if it were not for a reason. I have no
inte
On Monday 07 November 2005 23:13, Can Sar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to make a 1 thread version of UML that does not need to
> be able to support user level programs.
Why?
Did you ever read Rik van Reil's list of the dumbest patches he's ever seen?
This is the first entry in the list:
http:/
Hi,
I am trying to make a 1 thread version of UML that does not need to
be able to support user level programs. So I don't care about
systemcall interception or anything like that, I just want a copy of
UML that gets a basic kernel environment running (where I could call
some kernel funct
26 matches
Mail list logo
