Hi UML'ers,

Well, you have all been helpful with my previous problems, so now I have another question:

1)  I want to set up a UML with 3 ethernet ports - eth0, eth1, and eth2 - each being connected to a separate virtual network.  From reading about the daemon, it seems I can get this done.  I do a cd ~/Desktop/UML/linux-2.4.28 to get to the folder where all my Linux stuff is kept.  I plan to keep the uml_switch daemon sockets here, too.

a)  I launch the uml_switch 3 times using uml_switch -unix ./Sx where x = 0, 1, and 2.  That gives me 3 separate instances of uml_switch running each with its own virtual socket.

b)  I launch linux with ./linux ubd0=./root_fs eth0=daemon,,unix,./S0 eth1=daemon,,unix,./S2 eth2=daemon,,./S3 which then boots up linux.  I explicitly assigned IP addresses to each of the virtual sockets just so I could keep direct control of those socket IP assignments on the host, and so I would know what they were.

c)  Now, on the UML, when I do an ifconfig to set up eth0, for example ifconfig eth0, I get an error message SIOCSIFFLAGS: No such file or directory.  So I try it again with a different address, but I get the same error message.

Any ideas?

Ben Evans

On 1/27/06, frank evans <princedwardisland@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, and another UML'er has pointed me to patches he used successfully to compile with gcc4.  I'm going to give them a try...
On 1/27/06, Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@yahoo.it > wrote:
On Friday 27 January 2006 19:52, frank evans wrote:
> I changed the defconfig in arch/um to include CONFIG_IP_MROUTE and that set
> it up correctly...
> Much thanks to all...

> Now I have another question:

> I patched linux-2.4.28 with the uml patch 2.4.27-1, did the configs, make,
> etc.  If I make linux on one host, running Fedora Core 3, with a
> gcc3.4.2everything works fine.  If I make linux on a different host,
> running Fedora
> Core 4, with a gcc 4.0.0, I get a bunch of compile warnings about
> conflicting signage, and so forth.  I wonder what might be causing this.

I fixed that problem in 2.6, but since Linux 2.4 does not support Gcc 4.0, I
decided not to fix that error - I don't know if other problems may arise.

> I
> would not have thought there would be that much difference between the
> gcc's.

Instead there is a lot of difference... until a very few (1-2) releases ago
you could still see patches as "fix this which doesn't compile with gcc 4".

Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!".
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894)

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice: chiama da PC a telefono a tariffe esclusive