On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:19:55PM -0400, lanas wrote:
> Thanks. It makes me think that I saw once that there's an option to
> do a make modules_install with an actual target directory instead of
> assuming that the modules must be on the same filesystem as the sources
> of the kernel.
INSTALL_M
Le Lundi, 28 Avril 2008 12:45:30 -0400,
Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:44:13AM -0400, lanas wrote:
>> And the UML kernel was built uisng 2.6.24.2.
>>
>> Is the solution to this to replace the kernel (i.e. installaing
>> it complete with modules) inside t
I found atleast 1 memory leak (kindof a leak but not really its just growing
the disk
buffer cache. I don't know if it applies to 2.6 kernels since I run 2.4.35 UML
and
2.4.35 skas3 host.
For every mounted ext3 filesystem the journal file grows by 4K every 5 seconds
(ie the
commit interval).
2008/4/4 Flavio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 04/04/2008, Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 01:34:00PM +0200, Flavio wrote:
> > > I guess you mean the difference between eject on the host and eject on
> > > the UML guest. If so, this is the eject strace output on the
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:27:54AM +0200, Daniel Janzon wrote:
> Thanks for the information. Two follow-up questions though. First, are
> there any certain features of the kernel that can be turned off that
> makes the porting effort substantially smaller?
Turn off hostfs.
You can make the small
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 12:47 -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 04:02:26PM +0200, Daniel Janzon wrote:
> > Are there any reasons UML will not be able to run on for instance ARM
> > platforms?
>
> Nope.
Great!
> > I see in arch/um that there is some processor-dependent code
> > fo
