[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <551164ED.5000907@nod.at>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:21:49 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Hajime Tazaki <tazaki@....wide.ad.jp>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Jhristoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Jekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Javid Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Jndrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Mathieu Lacage <mathieu.lacage@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] an introduction of library operating system
for Linux (LibOS)
Am 24.03.2015 um 14:10 schrieb Hajime Tazaki:
> == More information ==
>
> The crucial difference between UML (user-mode linux) and this approach
> is that we allow multiple network stack instances to co-exist within a
> single process with dlmopen(3) like linking for easy debugging.
Is this the only difference?
We already have arch/um, why do you need arch/lib/ then?
My point is, can't you merge your arch/lib into the existing arch/um stuff?
>From a very rough look your arch/lib seems like a micro UML.
BTW: There was already an idea for having UML as regular library.
See: http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/old/projects.html
"UML as a normal userspace library"
Thanks,
//richard
--
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