[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E2D2AE8.7050100@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:35:52 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, gorcunov@...il.com, levinsasha928@...il.com,
asias.hejun@...il.com, prasadjoshi124@...il.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1
On 07/25/2011 11:31 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> In Ingo's reasoning, the next step would be to rewrite glibc and put it into the kernel tree, because we end up adding syscalls so adding them to the in-kernel libc with the same commit would be a lot easier and cleaner.
That actually makes a ton of sense. One immediate win would be that
klibc can be tuned to the kernel it ships with (the dynamic loader will
pick the correct object), so less #ifdef trees. Another would be to
make klibc the formal kernel interface, which allows us to reimplement
an older interface in terms of the one that supercedes it.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists