From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Subject: Re: kvm-87 fails to compile under uClibc Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:34:13 -0400 Message-ID: <200907071034.14623.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <1246934566.27337.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A53117E.8050305@redhat.com> <1246966290.32432.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8924202596308719641==" Cc: Cristi Magherusan , Avi Kivity , kvm To: uclibc@uclibc.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1246966290.32432.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: uclibc-bounces@uclibc.org Errors-To: uclibc-bounces@uclibc.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org --===============8924202596308719641== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3191613.ilFF5HguYi"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart3191613.ilFF5HguYi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 07 July 2009 07:31:30 Cristi Magherusan wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 12:12 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 07/07/2009 05:42 AM, Cristi Magherusan wrote: > > > I'm using linux-2.6.26.8, uClibc-HEAD(linuxthreds, almost complete > > > setup) and gcc 4.3.3. > > > > > > Also, is this kernel version supposed to work with this kvm? > > > > Yes. > > Actually only the headers are 2.6.26.8, the oldest vesion found in > buildroot. (I wonder why are older ones being abandoned, since the new > ones tend to get bigger and bigger.) upgrade > The kernel will be 2.6.24 because it's smaller. I know this mismatch may > not be good, but I have to get to a compromise. The kernel needs to be > as small as possible (everything should fit in a 4MB BIOS flash), and > also to support both this version of KVM and OpenVZ at the same time. > Older KVM versions have terrible buildsystem issues and I gave up trying > to get them compile in buildroot. I think OpenVZ could work on 2.6.26 > too, but I haven't tried yet. > > Could this be a real problem at runtime? with uClibc, yes -mike --nextPart3191613.ilFF5HguYi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJKU1zmAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WB4V8P/2rW+ze0VLW5bH+yj3qOcxY5 /TBFUWJKDrq7wRlQ5+pZD4zhHiSNIXawRTIea1vxiWkU4SM+9nf7P9e+hghNVpxx U8rlfW80+r2eHI6bJSLRy8ayEqv09GkhBZjTILY50y8vfaGzFi2XFdOJXaklrs3X OfI3MOC9X7EujbBsJt/QKvbcDPyLoZezZoSP3MRMMXxCyHi/avU5DBzIGLurQhUw oxIAYLWAILtVNtzrkFgGqnBjwuXqC9bmNYz/jC1RXBGeU565+XwiVDm71g5uFqGc iNufit3JGiUvsWZF+yRNqPu2sx1SYOe/r7ibRSz50kClLFHXmCWN0gv2U0pBcm0U cKvlhqMUdkQL6ohF6LKa1fCZgKR+CdBMsiCg8PlrVgcL3Xg857SOiaJcaMnIGfHq Xg2HQ7QV6/UNSt8IhxuZooZfym/trkv3QAqHoU6189x6pZacQ/Ayw9DkTRnbsYIG StkFpf9N7fMAYuzDqheOpW6M4my7JXHT5dzcjSd8Fitx5U7SgkWxVveo3BqQYC/x xsTid1AhZlKrkg+nFkCsPvffWzXIE5yGF152LY5bIYit520Pg8BLcwTGFynUQYEy vNQ2xnSVFaNokbpl5IdAUlyNijJ/XoZQvffcJ86sZjuJ+Yg1S9HSswaWf2RseT/L nMU2e/J2n0Gzm8t50gIJ =BQ9I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3191613.ilFF5HguYi-- --===============8924202596308719641== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc --===============8924202596308719641==--