From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Weinberger 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> References: <1427202642-1716-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1427202642-1716-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Hajime Tazaki , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Jonathan Corbet , Jhristoph Lameter , Jekka Enberg , Javid Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Jndrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Jeff Dike , Rusty Russell , Mathieu Lacage List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Am 24.03.2015 um 14:10 schrieb Hajime Tazaki: > =3D=3D More information =3D=3D >=20 > 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 stuf= f? >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: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143]:65278 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752764AbbCXNV5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:21:57 -0400 Message-ID: <551164ED.5000907@nod.at> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:21:49 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] an introduction of library operating system for Linux (LibOS) References: <1427202642-1716-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp> In-Reply-To: <1427202642-1716-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Hajime Tazaki , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Jonathan Corbet , Jhristoph Lameter , Jekka Enberg , Javid Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Jndrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Jeff Dike , Rusty Russell , Mathieu Lacage Message-ID: <20150324132149.MT9foi_uXspwzcUZCrs4GNEgkzjqMxiCCbVrrGj_vXo@z> 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 mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240AF6B006C for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wgbcc7 with SMTP id cc7so170932245wgb.0 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from radon.swed.at (a.ns.miles-group.at. [95.130.255.143]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wp10si6372496wjc.164.2015.03.24.06.21.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 06:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <551164ED.5000907@nod.at> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:21:49 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] an introduction of library operating system for Linux (LibOS) References: <1427202642-1716-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp> In-Reply-To: <1427202642-1716-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Hajime Tazaki , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Jonathan Corbet , Jhristoph Lameter , Jekka Enberg , Javid Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Jndrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Jeff Dike , Rusty Russell , Mathieu Lacage 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: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752936AbbCXNWW (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:22:22 -0400 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143]:65276 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752870AbbCXNV5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:21:57 -0400 Message-ID: <551164ED.5000907@nod.at> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:21:49 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hajime Tazaki , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org CC: Arnd Bergmann , Jonathan Corbet , Jhristoph Lameter , Jekka Enberg , Javid Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Jndrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Jeff Dike , Rusty Russell , Mathieu Lacage Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] an introduction of library operating system for Linux (LibOS) References: <1427202642-1716-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp> In-Reply-To: <1427202642-1716-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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