Re: [uml-user] UML for embedded system development

2007-03-21 Thread Mathew Brown
> > > The unionfs filesystem allows you to stack filesystems on top of each > > > other. > > Yup, this is file-by-file COW-ing rather than block-level COW-ing. Same > idea, different level. > > Also, it's in -mm, I think, but not mainline, and there are enough > architectural questions about it

Re: [uml-user] UML for embedded system development

2007-03-21 Thread Jeff Dike
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 07:17:16AM -0700, Christopher Marshall wrote: > The unionfs filesystem allows you to stack filesystems on top of each other. Yup, this is file-by-file COW-ing rather than block-level COW-ing. Same idea, different level. Also, it's in -mm, I think, but not mainline, and th

Re: [uml-user] UML for embedded system development

2007-03-21 Thread Pipkins, Jeff
Fascinating. Yes, I'd love to get a copy of your shell script. It would be interesting to explore this some more, regardless of whether I end up using it for this particular application. Thanks, --Jeff -Original Message- From: Christopher Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 20

Re: [uml-user] UML for embedded system development

2007-03-21 Thread Christopher Marshall
Jeff: I don't know if you can use the same code with a host kernel (that manages cow files in guest kernels), but I can think of at least one way to achieve the same effect. The unionfs filesystem allows you to stack filesystems on top of each other. Say you have two directories A, and B, and

Re: [uml-user] Kernel panic

2007-03-21 Thread Jeff Dike
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:14:37PM +0800, Yang Sheng wrote: > Any solution? Or if I can provide more information? Not yet, I haven't started looking at this yet. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com --

Re: [uml-user] clock synchronization with NTP

2007-03-21 Thread Jeff Dike
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 12:07:38PM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > My question is: is it enough to run NTP on the host and expect the > guests to keep synchronized? Or should I run NTP on each guest? > > And more generally, how are clocks (both "hardware" and system) managed > with UML? It should

Re: [uml-user] Kernel panic

2007-03-21 Thread Yang Sheng
Any solution? Or if I can provide more information? On 3/18/07, Yang Sheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Which same error? > Sorry, I didn't point it out clearly. Using 2.6.20.3 host kernel with 2.6.20.3 precompiled kernel binary, and DSL-2.2 root system image, I got: INIT: version 2.78-knoppix

[uml-user] plucky afford

2007-03-21 Thread Wilfrid
In the hot tub, Jenn and Brooke, who are obviously both drunk out of their minds discuss Jenn's bf Jared. NOTHING TO ROLL WITH A country-esque tune about having to smoke out of your bong (nullus? Did you miss a couple minutes of the show? Hard to tell from here. He sounds like a homo! Similarly,

[uml-user] clock synchronization with NTP

2007-03-21 Thread Nicolas Boullis
Hi, I'd like to run some UML guests with their clocks synchronized to external references. Of course, I thought about NTP... My question is: is it enough to run NTP on the host and expect the guests to keep synchronized? Or should I run NTP on each guest? And more generally, how are clocks (both