[User-mode-linux-devel] more uml 2.3.49 results and a first pass rpm of the root filesystem.

[William S. <wst...@po...>]

Good morning, Jeff,

On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Jeff Dike wrote:

> > 	This one's not too hard to trigger - let me know if I can supply
> > additional info or a shell account on this laptop. 
> 
> I can't reproduce it at all.  I've done your things, I've done some other 
> strange things, I've done a bunch of them running at the same time, and all I 
> get is pages of numbers and no crashes.

	I give it a 60% chance that it's some odd quirk in my host
environment.  This is a laptop with pcmcia, apm enabled, probably a number
of other quirks a desktop machine wouldn't have.
	Supporting that theory is the fact that I find that a shell app
I've written tends to crash from time to time; I think it's getting some
kind of signal it doesn't expect.
	We keep looking.

stock 2.3.49 (Linux version 2.3.49-1um (jd...@cc...)), rh6.2
root (although we haven't gotten to that yet:

VFS: Mounted root (ext2 filesystem) readonly.
Mounted devfs on /dev
INIT: version 2.78 booting
Unimplemented syscall : 197
                           Untested (2216) [0x10154c48]: syscall_kern.c line 672

	and again, with:
INIT: version 2.78 booting
Unimplemented syscall : 197
                           Untested (2403) [0x10154c48]: syscall_kern.c line 672

	, add "devfs=nomount" to the command line as I forgot to add
devfsd to the rootfs and:
INIT: version 2.78 booting
Unimplemented syscall : 197
                           Untested (2440) [0x10154c48]: syscall_kern.c line 672

	Sorry, can't get it to boot.  Hmmm.... wait a second!  In making
the root_fs in the rpm, I used dd to get a contiguous block of
sectors.  Once packaged and installed, that is almost certainly no longer
the case.
	Does the root_fs need to be contiguous, or can the uml kernel
open a root_fs that's not?

> > usermode login: thread got SIGIO 
> 
> I think I fixed this one, though.  I didn't read the fcntl man page carefully 
> enough for my last fix of this problem.

	Thanks...

> > Off to try to get an RH6.2beta root_fs ready.  Do you have any
> > interest in posting it to uml.sourceforge? 
> 
> Yes, I do.  I just haven't run into any RH media later than 6.0 recently.

	I pulled down the rpm's and stuck them in a directory and built
the rpm.  I've attached the src rpm; if anyone would like to try it, put
it in /usr/src/redhat/SRPMS, put the necessary rpms (list attached
above, versions will be different if you're using a distribution other 
than rh6.2beta) in /mnt/flipper/usr/src/uml-rhrpms/ and:

cd /usr/src/redhat/SRPMS
rpm --rebuild uml-rhroot-6.2-0.src.rpm

	For those that want to see the guts, the spec file will be left in
/usr/src/redhat/SPECS/ and the various configuration files will be in
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ .
	This is _not_ a final rpm, just being made available to those that
want to play.

> > I'd like to sincerely
> > suggest making two rpm's, one for the uml kernel, one for the root_fs
> > itself, so people can mix and match.
> 
> How's that different from what I'm doing now, except that the packages include 
> the kernel?  Are you suggesting a package without a kernel?

	I'd suggest that.  Have a uml-rhroot-6.2, uml-rhroot-6.0,
uml-debroot-2.0, etc. rpms for the root and uml-kernel-2.3.49,
uml-kernel-2.3.46, etc.  The user can mix and match by copying their
root_fs of choice and their kernel of choice from /var/lib/uml to a 
working directory.
	How does that sound?
	Cheers,
	- Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	I like cats too, lets exchange recipies.
(Courtesy of John Michael Clemens <cl...@rp...>)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Stearns (wst...@po...).  Mason, Buildkernel, named2hosts, 
and ipfwadm2ipchains are at: http://www.pobox.com/~wstearns/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------