From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pj1-f47.google.com ([209.85.216.47]:44343 "EHLO
        mail-pj1-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726191AbfK1Jx1 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 28 Nov 2019 04:53:27 -0500
Received: by mail-pj1-f47.google.com with SMTP id w8so11631729pjh.11
        for <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 01:53:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 18:53:18 +0900
Message-ID: <m2r21sqqcx.wl-thehajime@gmail.com>
From: Hajime Tazaki <thehajime@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 17/37] lkl tools: host lib: virtio devices
In-Reply-To: <48783237.99334.1574864917843.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
References: <cover.1573179553.git.thehajime@gmail.com>
        <1662825264.98055.1574758225905.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
        <4ebb14dc67ccb70543617ce1f7066f3f27cd11a8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
        <243342257.98153.1574762974057.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
        <98acf77a7c6f6cba7f76c12a850ac2929b9e5a48.camel@sipsolutions.net>
        <CAMoF9u3LRC_NaVJzmKPc0+XBxhAqdhnr4-ZzY_ypwQEzUz78yQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <293078386.98317.1574784295793.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
        <m2wobmq7v8.wl-thehajime@gmail.com>
        <48783237.99334.1574864917843.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: richard@nod.at
Cc: tavi.purdila@gmail.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, cem@freebsd.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, retrage01@gmail.com, linux-kernel-library@freelists.org, pscollins@google.com, sigmaepsilon92@gmail.com, liuyuan@google.com, anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com


On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 23:28:37 +0900,
Richard Weinberger wrote:
>=20
> ----- Urspr=FCngliche Mail -----
> >> Can you please point out a little further why UML's net or block drive=
rs
> >> are not usable for LKL?
> >=20
> > I think we can do it (but need to check).
> >=20
> > LKL may use UML's drivers, and UML can also use LKL's devices/drivers
> > (as my 36/37 and 37/37 patches do, though the patches has no careful
> > consideration on IRQ handling).
>=20
> Of course. So please don't get me wrong, I don't want LKL to become
> UML. I hope that UML can also benefit from LKL.

I understand, let me play with the UML code for a while.

-- Hajime