From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AZCuE-0004YG-OO for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:34:46 -0800 Received: from smtp001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.32]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AZCuE-00051t-4z for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:34:46 -0800 From: BlaisorBlade Subject: Re: [uml-devel] 2.4.22-[67] problems References: <20031220011323.GW18100@alcor.net> <200312211658.44353.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> <20031221224001.GO9354@alcor.net> In-Reply-To: <20031221224001.GO9354@alcor.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312241348.02720.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:48:02 +0100 To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Alle 23:40, domenica 21 dicembre 2003, Matt Zimmerman ha scritto: > > > Thanks for looking at it. It's sounding more and more like the new > > > glibc/linux-kernel-headers packages have broken UML. > > > Maybe something is > > > getting the host's kernel headers when it needs the ones from the UML > > > build tree? > > > > Something is getting the host's headers and it must get them, not the > > ones from UML build tree. > > > > Every UML arch file with its name ending in _user.c(+ quite a lot of > > other ones, listed in USER_OBJS in Makefiles) are built against the host > > headers, since they are the code interacting with the host. > > Yes, I understand that. Was my sentence unclear? No, just I don't think that situation can happen. Maybe the problem is just that glibc is built against 2.6(i.e. you should try not only replacing headers, but also rebuilding glibc after that). Maybe this could be related with new things from glibc and 2.6, i.e. vsyscall or NPTL(I am just shooting in the middle, I don't even have ideas of what vsyscall is). I've tried even if any of the header-generator programs use some changed headers, but for I saw is that every definition stayed the same (except #define PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS 21 which had same number but was named PTRACE_SETOPTIONS in 2.4). > I was suggesting that > it was possible that the host's kernel headers were being used in a > situation where the UML tree kernel headers _should_ be used. I understood this; only I think this doesn't happen... -- cat <