From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x541.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::541]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iPeWD-0007f1-4B for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:19:34 +0000 Received: by mail-pg1-x541.google.com with SMTP id l24so457795pgh.10 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 12:19:25 +0900 Message-ID: From: Hajime Tazaki Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/47] lkl: architecture skeleton for Linux kernel library In-Reply-To: <9df8075205912512a9a0ec7eb0393ff74d3c4bbb.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <0b1464dd4904ee2b049fef624895ead3fe6aa555.1571798507.git.thehajime@gmail.com> <9df8075205912512a9a0ec7eb0393ff74d3c4bbb.camel@sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-um" Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org To: johannes@sipsolutions.net Cc: levex@linux.com, mattator@gmail.com, cem@freebsd.org, richard.weinberger@gmail.com, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, staal1978@gmail.com, motomuman@gmail.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, retrage01@gmail.com, petrosagg@gmail.com, tavi.purdila@gmail.com, xiaoj@google.com, mark@stillwell.me, edisonmcastro@hotmail.com, pscollins@google.com, phh@phh.me, sigmaepsilon92@gmail.com, luca.dariz@gmail.com, liuyuan@google.com Hello, On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:57:43 +0900, Johannes Berg wrote: > > Offering UML feature-sets, keeping compatibility, while > > benefiting from LKL (e.g., various underlying environment > > support) would be very high-level goal since there are many > > users of UML (various test tool projects, including coming > > Kunit). > > Aren't you going about this the wrong way around? > > I mean, this reads like you're proposing to start from LKL and > reimplement UML on top of it, but we currently have UML in the tree and > LKL isn't. Seems backward to me. I see your point. Our basic standpoint is to follow the project idea listed in the old UML web page. http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/old/projects.html Especially LKL should be able to contribute the following ideas to UML. - Architecture Ports (e.g., run on arm32) - OS Ports (e.g., Windows host) - UML as a normal userspace library I wish I'm not going to break any existing facility of UML in this introduction. If you found any, I'm happy to fix such problems. > Also, looking at the patches, I'm not a huge fan of the whole "drop LKL > into UML". UML is already complex enough as is, with its memory model > and all, mixing in LKL makes it way more complex. > > I don't think "drop LKL under UML" was what people had in mind when they > suggested that the two merge ... As Richard explained, putting new arch/um/lkl folder should not be our final goal. -- Hajime _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um