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 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 To: Hajime Tazaki , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1427202642-1716-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: netdev.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