Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1603441 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-17 17:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-03-17 18:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: UML not maintained anymore? Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-03-17 17:30 +0100
Re: UML not maintained anymore? Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 18:30 +0100
| From | Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 17:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: UML not maintained anymore? |
| Message-ID | <tm2Vj-Og-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue 2017-02-28 16:28:11, Natale Patriciello wrote: > It seems there is no interest in fixing bugs (such as [1]). Moreover, > same guest filesystem (same host os, distribution, etc.) on two > different machines (i7-2630 the first, i7-7700HQ the second) yield > different results, with crashes and corruption of filesystem in the > modern computer. So, can I consider UML as a legacy thing in the Linux > kernel? With what I can replace it (I'm doing TCP research, and I focus > on the networking stack)? Well.. if it worked before and does not work now, that's a regression and will be fixed. Bisect would be useful. If it never worked on new CPUs, that's different situation... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 18:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tm3Ro-1t5-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1603441 |
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > On Tue 2017-02-28 16:28:11, Natale Patriciello wrote: >> It seems there is no interest in fixing bugs (such as [1]). Moreover, >> same guest filesystem (same host os, distribution, etc.) on two >> different machines (i7-2630 the first, i7-7700HQ the second) yield >> different results, with crashes and corruption of filesystem in the >> modern computer. So, can I consider UML as a legacy thing in the Linux >> kernel? With what I can replace it (I'm doing TCP research, and I focus >> on the networking stack)? > > Well.. if it worked before and does not work now, that's a regression > and will be fixed. Bisect would be useful. > > If it never worked on new CPUs, that's different situation... Yep, a bisect would be good. Regressions are rather easy to fix. UML is more or less in legacy mode an I work on it purely in my very limited spare time. That's why I don't have time to track down and solve every single bug. -- Thanks, //richard
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web