Hi,
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 01:48:36PM +0200, Daniel Janzon wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 18:57 -0400, lanas wrote:
> > I noticed this thread. By the subject it seems it's taken for granted
> > that UML will run on a PowerPC. is this the case ?
>
> The only reason I assumed there was PowerPC s
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 18:57 -0400, lanas wrote:
> Le Mardi, 29 Avril 2008 11:21:29 -0400,
> Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> > You can make the smallest possible kernel that you can boot, but
> > it doesn't seem to me that much else will make a big difference in the
> > porting effort.
Le Mardi, 29 Avril 2008 11:21:29 -0400,
Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> You can make the smallest possible kernel that you can boot, but
> it doesn't seem to me that much else will make a big difference in the
> porting effort.
I noticed this thread. By the subject it seems it's taken
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
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.
> I see in arch/um that there is some processor-dependent code
> for x86 and ppc. Is this code strictly needed in order to run UML? Or is
> on
Hi,
Are there any reasons UML will not be able to run on for instance ARM
platforms? I see in arch/um that there is some processor-dependent code
for x86 and ppc. Is this code strictly needed in order to run UML? Or is
only for added performance?
Best regards,
Daniel
-