Re: [uml-devel] Re: TLS support - status - need for re-testing

[Antoine Martin <antoine@nagafix.co.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 938 bytes --]

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 20:51 -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:44:05AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Yes, that is true, but meanwhile give a testing to them, especially regressio
> > test the new patches. I can't merge new patches in until I'm sure they don't 
> > cause regressions.
> 
> OK, I give it a thumbs-up on a first boot - it's running my FC5
> filesystem without any trouble.  I'll keep playing with it and let you
> know of any trouble.
I haven't been able to run FC4/FC5 x86 filesystems with any of the
patches floating around. (on amd64 host)

> Attached is a tarball of the patches merged after the patches I have
> planned for 2.6.17.  Nothing major, just some fuzz, some Makefile
> rejections, and rejections from some whitespace cleanup in
> kernel/skas/process_kern.c.
I couldn't figure out in which order I need to apply these (no series
file) and I've ran out of time.

Antoine

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]