On Wednesday 16 March 2005 13:42, Paul Warren wrote:
> I was about to ask the same.  We're having trouble building a stable
> 2.4.29.
>
> We were trying 2.4.29 + the uml-patch-2.4.27-1.bz2 from the main UML
> web-site (plus an additional patch to fix a kernel stack overflow bug).
> Unfortunately it seems that hostfs operations leak memory.
This is a news... can you explain this? There are in fact strange messages 
from UML/2.4 which could be leak-related...
> So we've just gone for 2.4.29 + uml-patch-2.4.24-1base.patch.bz2 +
> uml-2.4.27-bs1 + a half of the above patch for kernel stakc overflow
> bug.

> The latter combination does better on the hostfs stuff,

definitely... the 2.6 hostfs code is the one in -bs, i.e. the solid one from 
before the HUMFS work.

> but seems to 
> still have kernel stack overflow issues.  A browse through bs2-pre6
> suggests that there might be a fix for this there.
>
> Should I be using bs2-pre6?
Well, I guess that probably yes... The stack-overflow fix is taken right from 
the Jeff Dike's tree. (In general I just insert fixes from either 2.6 or Jeff 
Dike's 2.4, which in turn is backporting them from 2.6 too).

> What is the relative status of the BlaisorBlade's patches compared to
> those published on the sourceforge site?
-bs1 is later than 2.4.26-um3 and earlier than 2.4.27-1um. -bs2-pre6 contains 
at least all the stuff from 2.4.27-1um + incrementals (at least the worthy 
one).

-- 
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade





-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-user mailing list
User-mode-linux-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user

Reply via email to