From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.12] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AZwgY-0007MX-2d for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:27:42 -0800 Received: from i164-069.nv.iinet.net.au ([203.59.164.69] helo=cp.yi.org) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AZwgX-0004xk-Bj for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:27:41 -0800 Received: from erdos.home ([10.0.1.2] helo=erdos) by cp.yi.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AZwgU-0007p3-00 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:27:38 +0800 Received: from cameron by erdos with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AZwgT-0003fq-00 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:27:37 +0800 From: Cameron Patrick Subject: Re: [uml-devel] UML patches against vanilla 2.6.0 Message-ID: <20031226182737.GK2378@erdos.home> References: <200312261905.48277.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312261905.48277.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: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:27:37 +0800 To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 07:05:48PM +0100, BlaisorBlade wrote: | Go here: | | http://web.tiscali.it/no-redirect-tiscali/blaisorblade/index.html Which says: The only problematic patch is A-04-MM-compile-fix.patch, but maybe i386 can live even with it (I don't remember if I got a successful compilation with it applied). However, I think it's not at all safe even if it compiles. and in the README: but I think you'd better avoid doing this or do a complete backup, since you'll need it...). Eeek! I just upgraded my home desktop to a 2.6.0 kernel with that patch applied (actually as part of Jeff's 2.6.0-test9 patch) and so far it seems to be working. Looking at the patch, it seems innocuous enough - why should it be unsafe on an i386 kernel? Cameron. (Who doesn't have a complete system backup and hopes he won't regret not making one soon...) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel