From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 01:52:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 01:52:22 -0400 Received: from relay1.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]:58119 "HELO relay.pair.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 01:52:22 -0400 X-pair-Authenticated: 24.126.75.99 Message-ID: <3CD4C93D.E543B188@kegel.com> Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 22:55:09 -0700 From: Dan Kegel Reply-To: dank@kegel.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Blanchard CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "yossi@ixiacom.com" Subject: Re: khttpd newbie problem In-Reply-To: <3CD402D2.E3A94CA2@kegel.com> <20020505005439.GA12430@krispykreme> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Anton Blanchard wrote: > > I'm having an oops with khttpd on an embedded 2.4.17 ppc405 > > system, so I thought I'd try it out on my pc. But I can't > > get khttpd to serve any requests. > > Any reason for not using tux? Its been tested heavily on ppc64, > the same patches should work on ppc32. That's an excellent suggestion. It certainly seems that khttpd is no longer production quality (if it ever was), and tux is. I'm on an embedded system, so if tux is much larger, I'll be annoyed; but the system does have 64 MB, so it's not *that* cramped. And working is much better than crashing. - Dan