On Tuesday 20 December 2005 22:13, Joel Palmius wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > So we need an utility doing just the setup and the writeout. Should be
> > easy to do, but I must learn the complete COW API. I will dismiss this
> > task if I see (as it seems) that there are no e
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 08:16, Jim Carter wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Monday 19 December 2005 21:19, Jim Carter wrote:
> > The problem lies in the #ifdef mapping ntohll to _bswap64 - in 2.6.13 it
> > was changed in a wrong way (and not by anybody present here - so
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Monday 19 December 2005 21:19, Jim Carter wrote:
> The problem lies in the #ifdef mapping ntohll to _bswap64 - in 2.6.13 it was
> changed in a wrong way (and not by anybody present here - somebody went with
> a "nice cleanup" without understanding wh
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
So we need an utility doing just the setup and the writeout. Should be easy to
do, but I must learn the complete COW API. I will dismiss this task if I see
(as it seems) that there are no existing COW files.
Personally I stopped trusting COW files once
On Friday 16 December 2005 17:03, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Thursday 15 December 2005 21:15, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 05:26:44PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> We want a utility read-wrong-V3-header / write right one.
I have this support - indeed I've integrated the code to recog
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 06:25:20PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Why (in format v3) is everything in network byte order?
>
> I'm not entitled to answer - I wasn't here when it was born, and the decision
> traces to V2.
It's the reason that was speculated - it makes COW files more transportable.
On Monday 19 December 2005 21:19, Jim Carter wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 December 2005 21:15, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 05:26:44PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > > The problem is that the same declaration is used in kernel sources.
> >
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 04:54:40PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> IIRC, I saw with gdb that int are 4-byte aligned even on x86_64 - how does it
> go for 2-byte and 1-byte wide fields?
On Linux/x86_64, all integer types are alligned according to there size.
Bastian
--
Every living thing wants to
On Monday 19 December 2005 21:19, Jim Carter wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 December 2005 21:15, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 05:26:44PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > > The problem is that the same declaration is used in kernel sources.
> >
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Thursday 15 December 2005 21:15, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 05:26:44PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > The problem is that the same declaration is used in kernel sources. I.e.,
> > > we have (likely) COW files generated from 64-bit m
On Monday 19 December 2005 14:42, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 05:26:44PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > there is a different amount of padding between fields - on 64-bit
> > machines the natural alignment of __u64 is 8 bytes rather than 4, so 4
> > padding bytes get added between
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 05:26:44PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> there is a different amount of padding between fields - on 64-bit machines
> the
> natural alignment of __u64 is 8 bytes rather than 4, so 4 padding bytes get
> added between mtime and size on 64-bit binaries.
Just for the record,
On Thursday 15 December 2005 21:15, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 05:26:44PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > The problem is that the same declaration is used in kernel sources. I.e.,
> > we have (likely) COW files generated from 64-bit machines using a
> > different format from 32-bit o
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 05:26:44PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> The problem is that the same declaration is used in kernel sources. I.e., we
> have (likely) COW files generated from 64-bit machines using a different
> format from 32-bit ones. So we have two incompatible formats out there in the
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
uml_moo says "arithmetical error". I'm only guessing this is because the
root/cow files are too large..? Or is it a 64-bit host error?
...
Just for confirmation - I looked in your mails but I found a missing detail: I
expect you used a 32-bit kernel to
On Sunday 16 October 2005 18:26, Joel Palmius wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /export/virtual/usermode/machine.master $ ls -lh
> totalt 4,3G
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 joepal users 671 16 okt 16.09 config.pl*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 joepal users 12 16 okt 16.09 master.uml -> ../lib/linux*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 joepal users 4
I've put up a (newly-created) cow file on:
http://gathering.itm.mh.se/~joepal/uml/root_fs.cow.bz2(75k)
This is created on an amd64 host running 2.6.13.3 unpatched host,
2.6.13.4-bs4 guest with ext2 file system (if that has anything to do with
it). uml_moo has not been run on the file (I te
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 11:32, Joel Palmius wrote:
> > No, V3 is in use since long time - a lot before 2.4.24 surely.
>
> Then there's another (minor) bug in uml_moo :-)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /export/virtual/usermode/machine.test $ ./uml_moo
> ...
> ./uml_moo supports version 1 and 2 COW files
No, V3 is in use since long time - a lot before 2.4.24 surely.
Then there's another (minor) bug in uml_moo :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /export/virtual/usermode/machine.test $ ./uml_moo
...
./uml_moo supports version 1 and 2 COW files.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /export/virtual/usermode/machine.test $
Is thi
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 10:34, Joel Palmius wrote:
> (gdb) run
> Starting program: /export/virtual/usermode/machine.test/uml_moo root_fs.cow
> newroot
>
> Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
> 0x00402021 in read_cow_header (reader=0x401d51 ,
> arg=0x7fffe1b4, versio
(gdb) run
Starting program: /export/virtual/usermode/machine.test/uml_moo root_fs.cow
newroot
Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
0x00402021 in read_cow_header (reader=0x401d51 ,
arg=0x7fffe1b4, version_out=0x7fffe0cc,
backing_file_out=0x7fffe0b8, mtime
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 00:29, Joel Palmius wrote:
> It was altogether too long since I did any lowlevel programming. I must
> admit I don't get a whole lot out of gdb.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /export/virtual/usermode/machine.test $ gdb --args
> /usr/bin/uml_moo root_fs.cow newroot
>
> GNU gdb 6.3
It was altogether too long since I did any lowlevel programming. I must
admit I don't get a whole lot out of gdb.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /export/virtual/usermode/machine.test $ gdb --args
/usr/bin/uml_moo root_fs.cow newroot
GNU gdb 6.3 Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free
sof
On Sunday 16 October 2005 18:26, Joel Palmius wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /export/virtual/usermode/machine.master $ ls -lh
> totalt 4,3G
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 joepal users 671 16 okt 16.09 config.pl*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 joepal users 12 16 okt 16.09 master.uml -> ../lib/linux*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 joepal users 4
24 matches
Mail list logo
