On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12:58:35AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 08:40:55AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > I had a working Linux world on my laptop. I upgraded my kernel and
> > acroread4 stopped working. Now all I get is:
> >
> > Exited with error code: 0x400e0009.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mensaje citado por "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> | I had a working Linux world on my laptop. I upgraded my kernel and
> | acroread4 stopped working. Now all I get is:
> |
> | Exited with error code: 0x400e0009.
> |
> | after a whole lot of disk access when I t
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 08:40:55AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> I had a working Linux world on my laptop. I upgraded my kernel and
> acroread4 stopped working. Now all I get is:
>
> Exited with error code: 0x400e0009.
>
> after a whole lot of disk access when I try to run it. This worke
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 08:40:55AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> I had a working Linux world on my laptop. I upgraded my kernel and
> acroread4 stopped working. Now all I get is:
Is acroread4 multithreaded ?
Because since about 2 months all multithreaded linux binaries have
stopped working for
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:40:55 -0700 (MST)
> From: "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I had a working Linux world on my laptop. I upgraded my kernel and
> acroread4 stopped working. Now all I get is:
>
> Exited with error code: 0x400e0009.
>
> after a whole
Mensaje citado por "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I had a working Linux world on my laptop. I upgraded my kernel and
| acroread4 stopped working. Now all I get is:
|
| Exited with error code: 0x400e0009.
|
| after a whole lot of disk access when I try to run it. This worked on
| a De
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 10:59:08AM -0800, Chuck McCrobie wrote:
> Two panics produced when using Linux emulation on a
> machine CVSUP'ed two hours ago. Both very easy to
> produce.
What? You didn't want accurate Linux emulation. ;-)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscri
Chuck McCrobie wrote:
Thank you. That was it. Booted from
/boot/cvsup/kernel, loaded modules from
/boot/kernel/*. Now, if I can just figure out
"read-conf" and friends in loader.
It seems I have to manually:
loader> unload
loader> set kernel=cvsup
loader> set kernelname=/boot/cvsup/kernel
On 13-Jan-2003 Chuck McCrobie wrote:
> Thank you. That was it. Booted from
> /boot/cvsup/kernel, loaded modules from
> /boot/kernel/*. Now, if I can just figure out
> "read-conf" and friends in loader.
>
> It seems I have to manually:
>
> loader> unload
> loader> set kernel=cvsup
Thank you. That was it. Booted from
/boot/cvsup/kernel, loaded modules from
/boot/kernel/*. Now, if I can just figure out
"read-conf" and friends in loader.
It seems I have to manually:
loader> unload
loader> set kernel=cvsup
loader> set kernelname=/boot/cvsup/kernel
What exactly were you running? I use linux emulation on -CURRENT right now
for mozilla and a few other packages, and havn't had any panics... you
might have your kernel modules out of sync with your kernel.
Ken
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Chuck McCrobie wrote:
> Two panics produced when using Linux emu
I'm not sure who all has been messing with the linuxulator in the last
couple of days but as of my last several builds (the latest of a cvsup
this afternoon) any attempt to manipulate entries in /compat/linux/dev
(even to look at them with ls) causes a kernel page fault.
--
Michael D. Harnois, R
Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Linux has the distinction between block and character devices. I don't
> see any evidence that block devices can be accessed as character devices
> as well (ie: there's /dev/fd0, but no /dev/rfd0).
You can do this in Linux, but the way it works is p
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcel Moolenaar writes:
>> In that case, makebdev() has been wrong ever since we changed to
>> mount cdevs in FreeBSD.
>
>In the sense that we would never find the vnode and thus always return
>zero stats, right?
No, depends on the bmaj <-> cmaj mapping and the t
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> So, where do the programs that call this syscall have the udev_t from ?
Most likely from stat, lstat and fstat.
> Do they know it to be a mountpoint ?
That is implied by the way they get the dev_t.
> Do the know it to be a bmajor
> or cmajor style udev_t ?
AFAICT
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcel Moolenaar writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>> >In short: given the (u)dev_t, get the FS statistics and return the
>> >number of free blocks and inodes of the FS on that device.
>>
>> But the udev_t is a (32bit truncated to) 16bit one, right ?
>
>Correct
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> >In short: given the (u)dev_t, get the FS statistics and return the
> >number of free blocks and inodes of the FS on that device.
>
> But the udev_t is a (32bit truncated to) 16bit one, right ?
Correct.
> In that case it will usually not work:
>
> crw-r- 1 ro
Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>
> Marcel Moolenaar writes:
> > Wesley Morgan wrote:
> > >
> > > Anyone having problems with the linuxulator the past couple days?
> >
> > Define "past couple of days". I have a working linuxulator made on Oct
> > 29, 12:25 PST.
>
> phk took away mkbdev on 10/31. T
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcel Moolenaar writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>> I was just looking at that piece of code, and I couldn't entirely
>> make out what it was even trying to do. Can somebody more
>> linuxolator savy explain what the function linux_ustat() should
>> produce.
>
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> I was just looking at that piece of code, and I couldn't entirely
> make out what it was even trying to do. Can somebody more
> linuxolator savy explain what the function linux_ustat() should
> produce.
The following comment explains what linux_ustat should do:
I was just looking at that piece of code, and I couldn't entirely
make out what it was even trying to do. Can somebody more
linuxolator savy explain what the function linux_ustat() should
produce.
I also find this comment rather interesting...
/*
* XXX - Don't return an error
Marcel Moolenaar writes:
> Wesley Morgan wrote:
> >
> > Anyone having problems with the linuxulator the past couple days?
>
> Define "past couple of days". I have a working linuxulator made on Oct
> 29, 12:25 PST.
phk took away mkbdev on 10/31. The following "fixes" it, but I
have no id
From: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:59:48 -0800
::> Anyone having problems with the linuxulator the past couple days?
::
::Define "past couple of days". I have a working linuxulator made on Oct
::29, 12:25 PST.
By following commit, makebdev() went away.
But there
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:59:48PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Wesley Morgan wrote:
> >
> > Anyone having problems with the linuxulator the past couple days?
>
> Define "past couple of days". I have a working linuxulator made on Oct
> 29, 12:25 PST.
Mine:
Mon Oct 30 17:01:15 CET 2000 and
Wesley Morgan wrote:
>
> Anyone having problems with the linuxulator the past couple days?
Define "past couple of days". I have a working linuxulator made on Oct
29, 12:25 PST.
--
Marcel Moolenaar
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: (408) 447-4222
To Unsubscribe: send mail
Wesley Morgan wrote:
> Anyone having problems with the linuxulator the past couple days?
> Module fails to load for me, with this message:
> link_elf: symbol makebdev undefined
Yah, i do.
--
// Donny
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the bod
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jordan Hubbard writes:
: > By ETTW i mean estimated time to work :D
:
: It works right now and has for the last week. If you get out of date
: with your modules, on the other hand, you're shooting your own feet off.
And the move to the new layout may be shooting y
> By ETTW i mean estimated time to work :D
It works right now and has for the last week. If you get out of date
with your modules, on the other hand, you're shooting your own feet off.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of th
Tobias Fredriksson wrote:
> By ETTW i mean estimated time to work :D
> since the last compile a 1/2 days ago the linux emulation on my non-smp
> station has failed. Everything that has to use linux emulation crashes the
> kernel which is rather bad :/
>
> Anybody know when this is schedueled to b
On 14-Sep-00 Tobias Fredriksson wrote:
> By ETTW i mean estimated time to work :D
> since the last compile a 1/2 days ago the linux emulation on my non-smp
> station has failed. Everything that has to use linux emulation crashes the
> kernel which is rather bad :/
>
> Anybody know when thi
On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 06:29:59PM +0200, Eric Jacoboni wrote:
> > "Jesper" == Jesper Skriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jesper> Just upgraded my laptop from a late march -current to
> Jesper> -current as of a couple of hours ago.
>
> Jesper> When it loads the "Linux binary
> "Jesper" == Jesper Skriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jesper> Just upgraded my laptop from a late march -current to
Jesper> -current as of a couple of hours ago.
Jesper> When it loads the "Linux binary compatibility" it
Jesper> shutdown, if apm is enabled it looks like wh
Martin Blapp wrote:
> I really like to see your fix committed to STABLE. It fixes also the
> bad designed Staroffice 5.2 installation for some part (/usr/sbin/test).
...as well as the WordPerfect 2000 for Linux installation. Basically, it
sounds like it makes Linux emulation really complete. Al
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> There's another good reason to MFC the linux patch on wednesday...
> that is, to do it at the same time the SMP cleanup is MFC'd, and that
> is because both patch sets require the linux kernel module to be
> recompiled and I'd rather
Hi Matt,
I really like to see your fix committed to STABLE. It fixes also the
bad designed Staroffice 5.2 installation for some part (/usr/sbin/test).
Thank you for your work !
Martin
Martin Blapp, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Improware AG, UNIX solution a
>
> BTW; whilst I think Poul was entirely the wrong person to raise the
> issue, I agree that you probably want to hang back on MFCing the linux
> scripting changes for a week or so. This is really just common sense.
>
recently i added autoload to a usb related kernel module.
very ha
Mike Muir wrote:
>
> Nate Williams wrote:
>
> > I was under the impression that 4.x hasn't been designated as the stable
> > branch (yet). That will happen when 4.1 is released, but until that
> > happens 3.x is still considered the -stable release.
>
> That would kinda make sense since cvsupi
Nate Williams wrote:
> I was under the impression that 4.x hasn't been designated as the stable
> branch (yet). That will happen when 4.1 is released, but until that
> happens 3.x is still considered the -stable release.
That would kinda make sense since cvsuping with tag=RELENG_3 seems to
give
:
:>I do not consider the linux scripting patch to be a major infrastructure
:>change, I consider it to be a simple bug fix. If you have a functional
:>issue with the patch I'm all ears. If you disagree with my assessment of
:>the triviality of the linux scripting patch, then I
> I wonder if it makes sense to add a release id to the module header
> and have the module loader refuse (unless forced) to load modules that
> are out-of-date with the kernel?
We actually have a whole module dependancy and versioning system more or
less ready to go into -current.
>I do not consider the linux scripting patch to be a major infrastructure
>change, I consider it to be a simple bug fix. If you have a functional
>issue with the patch I'm all ears. If you disagree with my assessment of
>the triviality of the linux scripting patch, then I will as
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> If core wants to change the current rules, that's fine by me. As I
> said before I think the breakage that we thought would happen with 5.x
> due to the BSDI merger that prompted the loose rules for 4.x is
> overrated, and the rules should
> >Core should consider reverting the special rules that were originally
> >created with the expectation of major breakage in 5.x back to
> >the set of rules we had for 3.x and 4.x.
>
> I have no idea what special rules you are talking about for 4.x/5.x.
>
> 4.x-stable is a -stable
:
:In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
:
:>Core should consider reverting the special rules that were originally
:>created with the expectation of major breakage in 5.x back to
:>the set of rules we had for 3.x and 4.x.
:
:I have no idea what special rules you are
:
:
:Matt,
:
:I will say it this last time:
:
: Your patch does not qualify for immediate MFC.
:
:--
:Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
And I will say this to you for the last time: Under the current rules
my patch DOES qualify for an immediate MFC. Hell, by t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
>Core should consider reverting the special rules that were originally
>created with the expectation of major breakage in 5.x back to
>the set of rules we had for 3.x and 4.x.
I have no idea what special rules you are talking a
:> :
:> :--
:> :Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
:>
:>I think you're confused, Poul. I've gone over the commits made
:>to the tree by people over the last few months and frankly there
:>are dozens of simultanious -current and -stable commits. A quick
:>check
>
> :
> :In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
> :
> :>There's another good reason to MFC the linux patch on wednesday...
> :>that is, to do it at the same time the SMP cleanup is MFC'd, and that
> :>is because both patch sets require the linux kernel module to be
>
Matt,
I will say it this last time:
Your patch does not qualify for immediate MFC.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be
> There's another good reason to MFC the linux patch on wednesday...
> that is, to do it at the same time the SMP cleanup is MFC'd, and that
> is because both patch sets require the linux kernel module to be
> recompiled and I'd rather not force people to do that twice.
>
>
:
:In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
:
:>There's another good reason to MFC the linux patch on wednesday...
:>that is, to do it at the same time the SMP cleanup is MFC'd, and that
:>is because both patch sets require the linux kernel module to be
:>recompile
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
>I'm sorry, Poul, but you are going to have to come up with better
>reasoning then that.
>
>Not all changes committed to -current require a waiting period before
>being MFC'd to stable. Specifically, simple and obvious bug f
:In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
:
:>:I don't see anything justifying an immediate MFC in this patch. Please
:>:allow the normal waiting period to elapse before you MFC.
:>
:>Unless you can justify a reason for it NOT to be MFC'd immediately, I
:>see no reason to wa
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
>There's another good reason to MFC the linux patch on wednesday...
>that is, to do it at the same time the SMP cleanup is MFC'd, and that
>is because both patch sets require the linux kernel module to be
>recompiled and I'd
There's another good reason to MFC the linux patch on wednesday...
that is, to do it at the same time the SMP cleanup is MFC'd, and that
is because both patch sets require the linux kernel module to be
recompiled and I'd rather not force people to do that twice.
The SMP pat
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
>:I don't see anything justifying an immediate MFC in this patch. Please
>:allow the normal waiting period to elapse before you MFC.
>
>Unless you can justify a reason for it NOT to be MFC'd immediately, I
>see no reason to wait for
:
:In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
:
:>I intend to commit this to -current and immediately MFC it to -stable.
:>I don't expect there to be any controversy though I'm sure there is a
:>cleaner way to do it.
:
:I don't see anything justifying an immediate MFC in t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
>I intend to commit this to -current and immediately MFC it to -stable.
>I don't expect there to be any controversy though I'm sure there is a
>cleaner way to do it.
I don't see anything justifying an immediate MFC in this patch.
At 11:09 AM -0700 2000/4/10, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I can't say I'm impressed. Oracle itself is a very complete relational
> database, but their replication capabilities suck. They only do
> non-quorum fully synchronous replication or non-quorum fully
> asynchronous replica
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Basically I had to take the linux_base port, and then chroot into
> /usr/compat/linux and install the rpm's for most of redhat, including
> the compiler environment, and the ld.so and ldd piece from slackware
> (because redhat's is broken under emulation).
:> (No, this fix alone isn't enough to do an oracle install, it's just too
:> grungy a beast).
:
:In 1999Q2 I did an install of Oracle8i, which failed due to an installer
:problem, IIRC. I only modified 1 script to overcome the shell execution
:problem. You are using Blackdown JDK, are you
[CC to -emulation as well]
Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> I just noticed that the reserved area of the user stack that the linux
> emulator uses to copy modified paths is only 256 bytes long.
>
> linux_rename() makes two calls to the path munging code, which means
> that the two path
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Victor A. Salaman wrote:
> Anyways, after sending email to marcel and peter with the patches, I haven't
> even received a reply. :-(
>
> So therefore, I'm posting them here, in case anyone wants to commit
> them at all. I feel 4.0 shouldn't go out with a known broken linux
> e
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Chris Csanady wrote:
> > I *know* someone else said it wasn't so, but just 3 weeks ago I had this
> > very problem, with word perfect, and it works just fine now. Are you sure
> > you have a really up to date linux_base port installed? It was recently
> > changed, a *lot* o
> I *know* someone else said it wasn't so, but just 3 weeks ago I had this
> very problem, with word perfect, and it works just fine now. Are you sure
> you have a really up to date linux_base port installed? It was recently
> changed, a *lot* of new libs added, and I'd really like an answer on
> This is weird, I use linux netscape and word perfect all the time, and the
> only problems I see are memory leaks I knew were there (in the
> applications, not FreeBSD)
Indeed. The Linux version was more stable than the FreeBSD version
(that one can't digest the Slashdot site for some strange
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote:
> This is weird, I use linux netscape and word perfect all the time, and the
> only problems I see are memory leaks I knew were there (in the
> applications, not FreeBSD)
>
I had equal problems a little while back. Make sure you have the
linux_b
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Marc van Woerkom wrote:
> > (im)perfect. I was using the linux version of netscape, until
> > recently when it began hanging for long periods of time during
> > network or disk activity.
>
> Calling up linux-netscape-4.61 causes my system to freeze for a
> couple of seco
This is weird, I use linux netscape and word perfect all the time, and the
only problems I see are memory leaks I knew were there (in the
applications, not FreeBSD)
=
| Kenneth Culver | FreeBSD: The best OS around.|
Chris Csanady wrote:
[snip]
> it is still broken. I don't have time to go into it any further
> right now, but I thought I would check if others are having
> similar difficulties.
No.
> I have a lot to do, and it is just extremely irritating right
> now. I swear, nothing relating to linux ever
> (im)perfect. I was using the linux version of netscape, until
> recently when it began hanging for long periods of time during
> network or disk activity.
Calling up linux-netscape-4.61 causes my system to freeze for a
couple of seconds, then it reboots.
This is either related to some rece
Chuck Robey wrote:
>
> I just tried to use my copy of WordPerfect 8 to decode an rtf document,
> like I've done before the signal change, and boy was I surprised. The
> machine locked up for 10 seconds, then spontaneously rebooted.
>
> Anyone else have this experience with Linux emulation?
Som
72 matches
Mail list logo
