From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1EFE0W-0000Yv-6B for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:51:44 -0700 Received: from dgate1.fujitsu-siemens.com ([217.115.66.35]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1EFE0U-0001Mn-VB for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:51:44 -0700 Message-ID: <43270396.5050102@fujitsu-siemens.com> From: Bodo Stroesser MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [uml-devel] SYSEMU getting merged - but I'm in doubt References: <200509041702.18506.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <20050906161032.GA6157@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> In-Reply-To: <20050906161032.GA6157@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:51:34 +0200 To: Jeff Dike Cc: Blaisorblade , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "Charles P. Wright" Jeff Dike wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 05:02:18PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > >>Now, the point is: should I ask Linus to drop it for now, clean the >>interface, and resend the cleaned up one, with different ptrace call codes? > > > I would be tempted to leave it in and fix it before 2.6.14. We need different > ptrace codes so that UML knows how to switch interception types, I take it? > > UML is the only user, so there aren't really any compatibility issues. > > >>On the host side, instead, supporting both the broken API and the new one is >>more difficult. > > > Yeah, and it shouldn't be done. This is one reason I'd like to use the same > ptrace codes - it doesn't leave a hole in the codes that says there was a > broken ABI there once. > > >>What's your opinion on this? The options are: >>1) merge it as-is >>2) take it back for now, fix it and merge it for 2.6.15. > > > Merge as-is, fix it before 2.6.13, and you get the same thing, except > a release earlier. I think this shouldn't be a problem, as after the > floodgates close, you still get to fix things you merged early. This > came about as a result of feedback received because after it went into > -mm, and it seems to me that this is a legitimate change for 2.6.14. > > >>And then >> >>2a) drop the trick, and avoid changing ptrace call numbers. Old UMLs >>will run fast, but crash with /proc/sysemu (only root-accessible). > > > We should drop /proc/sysemu, if it's there at all, since it's only for > debugging sysemu, and maintain it as a private patch. So this doesn't > seem like much of an issue. > > Jeff It would be enough to make /proc/sysemu readonly. But we need to change check_sysemu(). The current implementation will work with the old API only. Bodo ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel