[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2bnjhcevt.wl@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:48:06 +0900
From: Hajime Tazaki <tazaki@....wide.ad.jp>
To: richard@....at
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de, corbet@....net,
cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jdike@...toit.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mathieu.lacage@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] an introduction of library operating system for Linux (LibOS)
At Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:27:51 +0100,
Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
> I'd say you should try hard to re-use/integrate your work in arch/um.
> With um we already have an architecture which targets userspace,
> having two needs a very good justification.
in addition to the case of my previous email, libos is not
limited to run on user-mode: it is just a library which can
be used with various programs. thus it has a potential (not
implemented yet) to run on a hypervisor like OSv or MirageOS
does for application containment, or run on a bare-metal
machine as rumpkernel does. We already have a clear
interface for the underlying layer to be able to add such
backend.
again, it's not only for user-mode.
mixing all the stuff in a single architecture may not only
mislead to users, but also introduce conceptual-disagreements
during code sharing of essential parts.
I don't see any benefits to have a name 'um' with this idea.
# I'm not saying sharing a part of code is bad idea at all, btw.
-- Hajime
--
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