bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Thu Mar 22 08:40:16 PDT 2007
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:31:29AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Thanks Bryan. It's still a mystery to me. I tried a 22.214.171.124
>>> kernel last night and it still failed for me.
>> Well, I can try installing 126.96.36.199 to see if it also fails for me;
>> perhaps 188.8.131.52 is an oddball? I know it has some other issues, so
>> I should upgrade it anyway.
> 184.108.40.206 also passes the test for me (fails the call). I suspect it's
> because it's 64-bit though. mmap seems likely to be affected by the
> architecture (more than some other syscalls, anyway). mincore does too.
> If I still have my 32-bit partition laying around, I can try to upgrade
> its kernel and see whether 220.127.116.11 fails for me in 32-bit mode. But
> it'll take a while.
Thanks Bryan. I've gotten a couple of reports of failures in 32 bit
systems but all reports about 64 bit systems pass. I've personally
tried 2.4.x, 18.104.22.168, and 22.214.171.124 kernels and all have the same
More information about the lfs-dev