Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] an introduction of library operating system
for Linux (LibOS)
[Posted April 7, 2015 by corbet]
| From: |
| Richard Weinberger <richard-AT-nod.at> |
| To: |
| Hajime Tazaki <tazaki-AT-sfc.wide.ad.jp>, linux-arch-AT-vger.kernel.org |
| Subject: |
| Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] an introduction of library operating system for Linux (LibOS) |
| Date: |
| Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:21:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID: |
| <551164ED.5000907@nod.at> |
| Cc: |
| Arnd Bergmann <arnd-AT-arndb.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet-AT-lwn.net>, Jhristoph Lameter <cl-AT-linux.com>, Jekka Enberg <penberg-AT-kernel.org>, Javid Rientjes <rientjes-AT-google.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim-AT-lge.com>, Jndrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-doc-AT-vger.kernel.org, netdev-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-mm-AT-kvack.org, Jeff Dike <jdike-AT-addtoit.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty-AT-rustcorp.com.au>, Mathieu Lacage <mathieu.lacage-AT-gmail.com> |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
