[uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards

Protection against the host's time going backwards - keep track of the time at the last tick and if it's greater than the current time, keep time stopped until the host catches up. Cc: Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- arch/um/os-Linux/time.c |7 +++

[uml-devel] [PATCH 2/6] UML - Remove a duplicate include

From: Huang Weiyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Removed duplicated include file "kern_util.h" in arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c. Signed-off-by: Huang Weiyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c |1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) Index: linux-2.6

[uml-devel] [PATCH 3/6] UML - Deal with inaccessible address space start

From: Tom Spink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This patch makes os_get_task_size locate the bottom of the address space, as well as the top. This is for systems which put a lower limit on mmap addresses. It works by manually scanning pages from zero onwards until a valid page is found. Because the bottom

[uml-devel] [PATCH 6/6] UML - PATH_MAX needs limits.h

From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Include limits.h to get a definition of PATH_MAX. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- arch/um/os-Linux/helper.c |1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) Index: linux-2.6-git/arch/um/os-Linux/helper

[uml-devel] [PATCH 4/6] UML - memcpy export needs to follow host declaration

x86_64 defines either memcpy or __memcpy depending on the gcc version, and it looks like UML needs to follow that in its exporting. Cc: Gabriel C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- arch/um/sys-x86_64/ksyms.c |4 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) Index: li

[uml-devel] [PATCH 5/6] UML - stub needs to tolerate SIGWINCH

We lost the marking of SIGWINCH as being OK to receive during stub execution, causing a panic should that happen. Cc: Benedict Verheyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- arch/um/os-Linux/skas/process.c |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) In

[uml-devel] [PATCH 0/6] UML - A batch for 2.6.26

These are either important bug fixes, or non-risky cleanups, and should go to 2.6.26. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all cha

Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:02:35 -0400 Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Protection against the host's time going backwards - keep track of the > time at the last tick and if it's greater than the current time, keep > time stopped until the host catches up. Strange. What would cause the host's t

Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards

On 3 Jun 2008, Daniel Hazelton said: > On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:32:11 pm Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:02:35 -0400 >> >> Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Protection against the host's time going backwards - keep track of the >> > time at the last tick and if it's greater

Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards

>> Protection against the host's time going backwards - keep track of the >> time at the last tick and if it's greater than the current time, keep >> time stopped until the host catches up. > >Strange. What would cause the host's time (or at least UML's perception >of it) to go backwards? mhh - w

Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:52:18 +0100 Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3 Jun 2008, Daniel Hazelton said: > > > On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:32:11 pm Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:02:35 -0400 > >> > >> Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Protection against the host's time g

Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:07:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > So if I change the host's time by an hour, the time will not advance at all > on the guest for the next hour? Sounds suboptimal :) It is, but if the host is whacked, the guest just has to do the best that it can...

Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards

On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:32:11 pm Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:02:35 -0400 > > Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Protection against the host's time going backwards - keep track of the > > time at the last tick and if it's greater than the current time, keep > > time stopped

Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards

On Tuesday 03 June 2008 04:07:09 pm Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:52:18 +0100 > > Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3 Jun 2008, Daniel Hazelton said: > > > On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:32:11 pm Andrew Morton wrote: > > >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:02:35 -0400 > > >> > > >> Jeff Dike <

Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 06:50:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Could using a CLOCK_MONOTONIC time source fix this? Those timers do not > change when we change the time on the host. Hmmm, maybe. The man page looks promising... Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot

Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards

Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:07:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> So if I change the host's time by an hour, the time will not advance at all >> on the guest for the next hour? Sounds suboptimal :) > > It is, but if the host is whacked, the guest just has to

Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards

On Tuesday 03 June 2008 09:50:49 pm Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:07:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> So if I change the host's time by an hour, the time will not advance at > >> all on the guest for the next hour? Sounds subopt