On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:41:43PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/16/2010 12:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:28:57AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
Yes. The BSDs tend to not play stupid emulation games in the libc, so
changes of these kinds of messup
On 02/16/2010 12:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:28:57AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Yes. The BSDs tend to not play stupid emulation games in the libc, so
changes of these kinds of messups to happen are far less.
In all fairness, I seem to recall there
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:17:27PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 06:47:55PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I don't think there's a good solution for this at the qemu level.
> > However I have a working patch for glibc:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 06:47:55PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I don't think there's a good solution for this at the qemu level.
> However I have a working patch for glibc:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563103#c13
Any chance you could just persuade Uli to drop the optimiz
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:28:57AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >Yes. The BSDs tend to not play stupid emulation games in the libc, so
> >changes of these kinds of messups to happen are far less.
> >
>
> In all fairness, I seem to recall there being a problem with the kernel
> implementati
On 02/12/2010 07:28 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 02/12/2010 07:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:49:23PM +0300, malc wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:06:08PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
One interesting thing is that
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:28:57AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I think a configure option would be in order. Forever avoiding glibc is
> probably a bit extreme.
I think a configure option won't work. The issue here was that
the binary is being installed on a machine with an older
kernel.
On 02/12/2010 07:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:49:23PM +0300, malc wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:06:08PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
One interesting thing is that qemu has its own preadv emul
malc wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:06:08PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > One interesting thing is that qemu has its own preadv emulation (which
> > > does the emulation correctly), but this is never used because qemu
> > > never ge
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:49:23PM +0300, malc wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:06:08PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > One interesting thing is that qemu has its own preadv emulation (which
> > > does the emulation correctly), but this
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:06:08PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > One interesting thing is that qemu has its own preadv emulation (which
> > does the emulation correctly), but this is never used because qemu
> > never gets ENOSYS back from prea
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:06:08PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> One interesting thing is that qemu has its own preadv emulation (which
> does the emulation correctly), but this is never used because qemu
> never gets ENOSYS back from preadv.
At this point the amount of bugs in the glibc prea
12 matches
Mail list logo
