OK, NEVERMIND! It all works fine...I just can't type...
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, 192.168.0.10,unix,./S0 eth1=daemon, 192.168.0.11,unix,./S2 eth2=daemon,192.168.0.12,./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 192.168.0.10 , 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.
Ben EvansOn 1/27/06, frank evans < firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.com > 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.
> would not have thought there would be that much difference between the
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