Hello,
Just a followup on this problem
I've built the UML kernel for 2.6.19.5 and it appears to be stable
with the same Centos root filesystem.
Haven't stressed it yet, though...
--
Best regards,
Russellmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 01 March 2007 04:16, Russell Robinson wrote:
> Hello Blaisorblade,
>
> B> This is probably the real source of the crash, from the stack trace. It
> is B> used in all sort of pseudo-files (like those in /proc), so I would
> say this B> bug seems more likely to be a mainline one; and it i
Hello Blaisorblade,
B> This is probably the real source of the crash, from the stack trace. It is
B> used in all sort of pseudo-files (like those in /proc), so I would say this
B> bug seems more likely to be a mainline one; and it is unclear from the trace
B> where the crash may have really happen
Hello Blaisorblade,
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 12:11:03 PM, you wrote:
B> This line is bogus:
>> 0a7a3e78: [<0806ba17>] uml_map_start+0x32/0xf8
B> This is probably the real source of the crash, from the stack trace. It is
B> used in all sort of pseudo-files (like those in /proc), so I would s
On Wednesday 28 February 2007 02:00, Russell Robinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a Centos 4.4 host (dual core) and I've built a Centos 4.4 root
> file system for UML.
>
> The UML kernel is 2.6.19-rc5 from the UML website.
>
> The UML was started with 64MB RAM and 128MB swap space.
>
> It was idle, exc
Hi,
I have a Centos 4.4 host (dual core) and I've built a Centos 4.4 root
file system for UML.
The UML kernel is 2.6.19-rc5 from the UML website.
The UML was started with 64MB RAM and 128MB swap space.
It was idle, except it may have been running its daily cron tasks.
Here's the crash info:
C
