From henrique.rodrigues at ist.utl.pt Mon Jan 19 16:49:57 2009 From: henrique.rodrigues at ist.utl.pt (Henrique Rodrigues) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:49:57 -0000 (WET) Subject: [Udpcast] UDP Cast ready-made boot images and i686 issues Message-ID: <875c3252d3a9566981b3eb58ee39adcf.squirrel@webmail.sodki.org> Hello, I've been using UDP Cast extensively for a while now and I love it, but I had an issue last week and I want to share it witou you. The UDP Cast website provides handy ready-made boot images. Apparently, those images are compiled for i686 and I couldn't make them work on an older machine because the processor doesn't implement the CMOV operation. The problem seem to belong to GCC, because it thinks that every i686 processor implements the optional CMOV operation, which is not true. I solved the problem by compiling my own UDP Cast kernel, but I suggest that the next UDP Cast ready-made boot images drop the i686 requirement and stick to i386, for compatibility reasons. Is this a reasonable request? Thank you and best regards, Henrique Rodrigues -- Henrique Rodrigues http://sodki.org Engenharia Informatica e de Computadores - Instituto Superior Tecnico From alain at knaff.lu Mon Jan 19 17:39:05 2009 From: alain at knaff.lu (Alain Knaff) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:39:05 +0100 Subject: [Udpcast] UDP Cast ready-made boot images and i686 issues In-Reply-To: <875c3252d3a9566981b3eb58ee39adcf.squirrel@webmail.sodki.org> References: <875c3252d3a9566981b3eb58ee39adcf.squirrel@webmail.sodki.org> Message-ID: <4974ACA9.3050000@knaff.lu> Henrique Rodrigues wrote: > Hello, > > I've been using UDP Cast extensively for a while now and I love it, but I > had an issue last week and I want to share it witou you. > > The UDP Cast website provides handy ready-made boot images. Apparently, > those images are compiled for i686 and I couldn't make them work on an > older machine because the processor doesn't implement the CMOV operation. > The problem seem to belong to GCC, because it thinks that every i686 > processor implements the optional CMOV operation, which is not true. > > I solved the problem by compiling my own UDP Cast kernel, but I suggest > that the next UDP Cast ready-made boot images drop the i686 requirement > and stick to i386, for compatibility reasons. > > Is this a reasonable request? > > Thank you and best regards, > > Henrique Rodrigues > I'll take note of this for the next release Alain From henrique.rodrigues at ist.utl.pt Mon Jan 19 18:01:12 2009 From: henrique.rodrigues at ist.utl.pt (Henrique Rodrigues) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:01:12 -0000 (WET) Subject: [Udpcast] UDP Cast ready-made boot images and i686 issues In-Reply-To: <4974ACA9.3050000@knaff.lu> References: <875c3252d3a9566981b3eb58ee39adcf.squirrel@webmail.sodki.org> <4974ACA9.3050000@knaff.lu> Message-ID: <74bd39be1aa51cbed365e895fde34230.squirrel@webmail.sodki.org> On Mon, January 19, 2009 16:39, Alain Knaff wrote: > Henrique Rodrigues wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I've been using UDP Cast extensively for a while now and I love it, but >> I >> had an issue last week and I want to share it witou you. >> >> The UDP Cast website provides handy ready-made boot images. Apparently, >> those images are compiled for i686 and I couldn't make them work on an >> older machine because the processor doesn't implement the CMOV >> operation. >> The problem seem to belong to GCC, because it thinks that every i686 >> processor implements the optional CMOV operation, which is not true. >> >> I solved the problem by compiling my own UDP Cast kernel, but I suggest >> that the next UDP Cast ready-made boot images drop the i686 requirement >> and stick to i386, for compatibility reasons. >> >> Is this a reasonable request? >> >> Thank you and best regards, >> >> Henrique Rodrigues >> > > I'll take note of this for the next release > > Alain Thank you very much, that will be very helpful. Best regards, Henrique Rodrigues -- Henrique Rodrigues http://sodki.org Engenharia Informatica e de Computadores - Instituto Superior Tecnico From justin.lipman at gmail.com Fri Jan 23 19:50:18 2009 From: justin.lipman at gmail.com (Justin Lipman) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:50:18 +0800 Subject: [Udpcast] unicast with async Message-ID: <22efa0550901231050l24d2276cn872fbb0d2cd6a68f@mail.gmail.com> Hi folks, I'd like to use udp-sender with async and a unicast address instead of multicast so that unicast at the MAC layer is actually used. Ive tried using the pointopoint switch, but I get the message "pointopoint mode set, and 0 participants instead of 1". Is there a way to do this with udpcast? Thanks kindly. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain at knaff.lu Mon Jan 26 23:51:20 2009 From: alain at knaff.lu (Alain Knaff) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:51:20 +0100 Subject: [Udpcast] unicast with async In-Reply-To: <22efa0550901231050l24d2276cn872fbb0d2cd6a68f@mail.gmail.com> References: <22efa0550901231050l24d2276cn872fbb0d2cd6a68f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <497E3E68.2060803@knaff.lu> Justin Lipman wrote: > Hi folks, > I'd like to use udp-sender with async and a unicast address instead of > multicast so that unicast at the MAC layer is actually used. > Ive tried using the pointopoint switch, but I get the message "pointopoint > mode set, and 0 participants instead of 1". > > Is there a way to do this with udpcast? > > Thanks kindly. > J This is to be expected. Pointopoint only works if the receiver is known; however that is only possible if he may register with the sender. Async on the other hand means that there is no back channel by which the receiver may make itself known to the sender Regards, Alain From justin.lipman at gmail.com Tue Jan 27 03:27:04 2009 From: justin.lipman at gmail.com (Justin Lipman) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:27:04 +0800 Subject: [Udpcast] unicast with async In-Reply-To: <497E3E68.2060803@knaff.lu> References: <22efa0550901231050l24d2276cn872fbb0d2cd6a68f@mail.gmail.com> <497E3E68.2060803@knaff.lu> Message-ID: <22efa0550901261827s34eec00cr9f599465f983cceb@mail.gmail.com> Yep. Thanks for the reply Alain. That assumes the back channel is not a human supplying the info. ;-) Is there a way to override this and provide the necessary receiver info/registration? Or do I need to modify the source? Cheers, J On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Alain Knaff wrote: > Justin Lipman wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I'd like to use udp-sender with async and a unicast address instead of > > multicast so that unicast at the MAC layer is actually used. > > Ive tried using the pointopoint switch, but I get the message > "pointopoint > > mode set, and 0 participants instead of 1". > > > > Is there a way to do this with udpcast? > > > > Thanks kindly. > > J > > This is to be expected. Pointopoint only works if the receiver is known; > however that is only possible if he may register with the sender. > > Async on the other hand means that there is no back channel by which the > receiver may make itself known to the sender > > Regards, > > Alain > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain at knaff.lu Tue Jan 27 07:41:57 2009 From: alain at knaff.lu (Alain Knaff) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:41:57 +0100 Subject: [Udpcast] unicast with async In-Reply-To: <22efa0550901261827s34eec00cr9f599465f983cceb@mail.gmail.com> References: <22efa0550901231050l24d2276cn872fbb0d2cd6a68f@mail.gmail.com> <497E3E68.2060803@knaff.lu> <22efa0550901261827s34eec00cr9f599465f983cceb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <497EACB5.2060207@knaff.lu> Justin Lipman wrote: > Yep. Thanks for the reply Alain. > That assumes the back channel is not a human supplying the info. ;-) > > Is there a way to override this and provide the necessary receiver > info/registration? > Or do I need to modify the source? > > Cheers, > J No, unfortunately, it is not (yet) possible to manually add participants in such a way Regards, Alain