On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 11:36:12AM +1000, John Birrell wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:05:02PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > Can you be certain that 100% of kernel changes to support WINE are present > > after fixing mmap? I heard WINE was still broken, so I haven't bothered > > trying. > > I think that 100% of the kernel memory changes required to support > Wine are related to mmap. Wine successfully maps the address space it > wants before dlopen'ing shared libraries. It's the kernel's choice of > map address that fails. > > There is at least one problem with Wine using libpthread. Whether that relates > to kernel or user-space code remains to be seen. I think the thread problem > is a separate issue. > > FWIW, I see no hurry in changing the mmap address allocation in CVS. This > issue has been around for months and *very* few people have commented. The > other BSD's are in the same boat. > > I intend to test the patch written by Anish and move on to the next Wine > problem 'when I get a chance' (TM). When Wine works again, albeit with a few > patches, then it will be time to find an implementation that people find > palatable. I thought that raising the issue on -arch like I did would have > at least got some response (even a single reply). Linux chooses random mmap > addresses for good reason. It would seem sensible to do that in FreeBSD too > (for the same reason). Is the problem that it specifically runs out of memory area but it's not checking where it needs to? If so, I think you could hash out the solution with a wrapper/workaround mmap() in userland first. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green_at_FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\Received on Sat Aug 28 2004 - 02:01:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:09 UTC