Re: [uml-user] Iptables Module with UML Kernel

2006-08-20 Thread Blaisorblade
On Sunday 20 August 2006 15:21, Mathew Brown wrote: > Hi, > If you mean by statically linked, CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=y Yes. > , I tried it > with 2.6.17-9 and it worked fine. Here's a diff between the .config > file that I used for static linking (without TT) and when I tried to > use TT (.

Re: [uml-user] Iptables Module with UML Kernel

2006-08-20 Thread Mathew Brown
Hi, If you mean by statically linked, CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=y, I tried it with 2.6.17-9 and it worked fine. Here's a diff between the .config file that I used for static linking (without TT) and when I tried to use TT (.configwithttthatsegfaults). If you'd like, I can send you the actual .

Re: [uml-user] Iptables Module with UML Kernel

2006-08-20 Thread Blaisorblade
On Sunday 20 August 2006 11:37, Mathew Brown wrote: > Hi, > I think I solved it. I also think that I found a bug. Here's what I > did and why I think it's a bug: > > I thought the problem might be related to 2.6.17-9 so I downloaded > 2.6.16 and compiled it. It's behavior was different b

Re: [uml-user] Iptables Module with UML Kernel

2006-08-20 Thread Mathew Brown
Hi, I think I solved it. I also think that I found a bug. Here's what I did and why I think it's a bug: I thought the problem might be related to 2.6.17-9 so I downloaded 2.6.16 and compiled it. It's behavior was different but it still wouldn't boot. It would give me the following: