What's the current status of the loop-# patch? Haven't seen anything
since loop-4, which doesn't apply clean to 2.4.1-ac14 (one hunk is
rejected in loop.c, many others apply with fuzz).
I am waiting in anticipation of the folding of this patch into the
mainline kernel.
IIRC, Jens said he was
Jens,
Please excuse this possibly stupid q. I don't know as much about kernel
hacking as I would like to.
I noticed that you are rewriting the loop block device to be a block
remapper (yes, I had noticed this before, the q just never occurred to
me before); does this imply that the native blo
A rather incomprehensible message, so let's flesh this out a bit.
Basically the problem occurs when patching linux/fs/reiserfs/namei.c It
can't find it, presumably due to an error in 2.4.1, where it appears to
me that reiserfs/ is located off of linux/ not linux/fs/. Simple to fix,
I guess, th
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
>
>> A rather incomprehensible message, so let's flesh this out a bit.
>>
>> Basically the problem occurs when patching linux/fs/reiserfs/namei.c It
>> can't find it, presumably du
While compiling the vmnet module, there is a warning
make: Entering directory `/tmp/vmware-config2/vmnet-only'
bridge.c: In function `VNetBridgeReceiveFromDev':
bridge.c:788: warning: implicit declaration of function `skb_datarefp'
and while inserting the module
/tmp/vmware-config2/vmnet.o: unr
Alan Cox wrote:
>> I have traced this back to 2.4.2-ac4 by looking for where this function
>> was removed.
>
>> yes, technically this probably is OT, and properly belong on the VMware
>> list, but I can't access their nntp server.
>
>
> Right so if I cant access microsofts mailing lists I sh
Jeff Lightfoot wrote:
> Here is a patch for vmware that was on the vmware newsgroups.
> (Hopefully wordwrap didn't screw this up)
Thanks, after applying by hand, it worked.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
M
Mark Hahn wrote:
>> Are there any architectures that are simple (sane) to implement sftw on?
>
>
> sftw? software? yes: portable C/C++ is a fine platform.
Not really the platform, but the architecture, from a C/C++ compiler and
kernel/asm/lowlevel lang development standpoint
>
>> The i38
2.4.1 detects 64 MB, but 2.4.0 detects 192 (Maybe 191, not sure).
dmesg attached.
Linux version 2.4.1 (root@tabriel) (gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux
(egcs-1.1.2 release)) #9 Tue Jan 30 15:35:21 EST 2001
BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
BIOS-88: 0009f000 @ (usa
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:25:22 -0500, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
>
>> 2.4.1 detects 64 MB, but 2.4.0 detects 192 (Maybe 191, not sure).
>> ...
>> Linux version 2.4.1 (root@tabriel) (gcc version egcs-2.91.66
19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:01:08 -0500, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:25:22 -0500, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2.4.1 detects 64 MB, but 2.4.0 detects 192 (Maybe 191, not sure).
>>>> ...
>
Dunlap, Randy wrote:
>> From: Adam Schrotenboer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:01:08 -0500, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:25:22 -0500, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
>>>>>
>>&g
I'm curious if the loopback block driver is stable enough yet to, say
put a loopback file on a vfat partition.
I have 2 HDs, one windoze, one linux. I can't be sure I won't need to
keep the vfat partition, so I can't just wipe it out. However, it
currently has more space on it than my ext2 dis
This is actually a repost of a problem that received few serious replies
(IMNSHO).
Basically 2.4.0 detects 192 MB(maybe 191, but big whoop) of memory. This
is correct. However, 2.4.1-ac6 (as did Linus-blessed 2.4.1) detects 64.
The problem is simple. 2.4.1 and later for some reason uses bios-8
This is a repost of a problem that received few serious replies (IMNSHO).
Basically 2.4.0 detects 192 MB(maybe 191, but big whoop) of memory. This
is correct. However, 2.4.1-ac6 (as did Linus-blessed 2.4.1) detects 64.
The problem is simple. 2.4.1 and later for some reason (with my
motherboard/
Dunlap, Randy wrote:
>> From: Adam Schrotenboer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>> This is actually a repost of a problem that received few
>> serious replies (IMNSHO).
>
>
> Well, I claim not to have ignored it.
> I have gone thru the entire patch-2.4.1
/dev/raw* Where? I can't find it in my .config (grep RAW .config). I am
using 2.4.4-ac11 and playing w/ 2.4.5-pre3.
TIA
Adam Schrotenboer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordom
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sat, May 19 2001, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
> > /dev/raw* Where? I can't find it in my .config (grep RAW .config). I am
> > using 2.4.4-ac11 and playing w/ 2.4.5-pre3.
>
> It's automagically included, no config options
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sat, May 19 2001, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
> > /dev/raw* Where? I can't find it in my .config (grep RAW .config). I am
> > using 2.4.4-ac11 and playing w/ 2.4.5-pre3.
>
> It's automagically included, no config options
Using 2.4.4-ac3 (as well as in 2.4.3*) I have found it impossible to
unmap a loopback
strace losetup -d /dev/loop0 (relevant portion)
open("/dev/loop0", O_RDONLY)= 3
ioctl(3, LOOP_CLR_FD, 0)= -1 EBUSY (Device or resource busy)
open("/usr/share/locale/en_US/LC_MESSAGE
Kurt Maxwell Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not
> dissatisfied with Windows. It has its uses, as do Linux (and NetBSD, and
> Solaris, and the other operating systems I have installed at home).
Frankly,
> I don't have a problem wit
Hua Zhong wrote:
>-> From Kurt Maxwell Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
>
>>You can choose to work somewhere else, or choose to enter a different field.
>>
>
>There are a lot of people who don't know how to use Linux/Unix. Windows is
>much easier for them and has more applications. They practically
Paul Mundt wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:35:24PM -0400, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
>
>>So as a user you are free to not use M$ products.
>>What if you are IT. Then you do not have a choice.
>>
>You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a positi
Perhaps I should say again that my current IT job is working w/ small
businesses and personal/home installations. In these cases, as well as
with others, it is not so much the OS that I have a problem w/. It is
the insistence of an all Macroshaft solution. Windows isn't totally bad.
I would ne
Jim Roland wrote:
>[snip]
>
>>>Get real, look at all the moronic things that various linux distributions
>>>
>do.
>
>>>Is this a reason to hate linux and demand the head of Linus as
>>>
>compensation
>
>>>for your troubles?
>>>
>>>This kind of attitude, and you wonder why MS attacks linux.
>>>
>>
Jens,
Remember several weeks ago when I mentioned a problem w/ ridicyulous
mod-use counts w/ loop.o???
Well, it's back again 2.4.5-ac19 (IIRC) worked fine.
Basically, the result of attempting sudo losetup -d /dev/loop0 is the
following
ioctl LOOP_CLR_FD Device or resource busy
strace shows E
26 matches
Mail list logo
