From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 26 19:20:10 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5019116A41C for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:20:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jaco@coocoo.za.net) Received: from riot.premsoft.co.za (mail.accountmate.co.za [196.38.54.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E5E43D4C for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:20:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jaco@coocoo.za.net) Received: (qmail 87133 invoked by uid 1003); 26 Jun 2005 19:14:31 -0000 Received: from jaco@coocoo.za.net by riot.premsoft.co.za by uid 89 with qmail-scanner-1.22 (clamscan: 0.65. spamassassin: 2.63. Clear:RC:1(127.0.0.1):. Processed in 11.682101 secs); 26 Jun 2005 19:14:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO webmail.premsoft.co.za) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Jun 2005 19:14:19 -0000 Received: from 196.37.144.98 (SquirrelMail authenticated user jaco@coocoo.za.net) by webmail.premsoft.co.za with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:14:19 +0200 (SAST) Message-ID: <3106.196.37.144.98.1119813259.squirrel@webmail.premsoft.co.za> In-Reply-To: <1119812342.1100.12.camel@localhost> References: <2943.196.37.144.98.1119808764.squirrel@webmail.premsoft.co.za> <1119810301.1100.5.camel@localhost> <3036.196.37.144.98.1119811026.squirrel@webmail.premsoft.co.za> <1119812342.1100.12.camel@localhost> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:14:19 +0200 (SAST) From: jaco@coocoo.za.net To: vova@fbsd.ru User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org, jaco@coocoo.za.net Subject: Re: [Linux] Loading Linux modules in Apache? X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:20:10 -0000 > В вс, 26/06/2005 в 20:37 +0200, jaco@coocoo.za.net пишет: >> Hello Vladimir, >> >> > ÷ ×Ó, 26/06/2005 × 19:59 +0200, jaco@coocoo.za.net ÐÉÛÅÔ: >> >> Hello All, >> >> >> >> I am trying to load a Linux module in Apache 2.0.53, but I am running >> >> into >> >> some problems. >> >> >> >> I am not sure if this is even possible, but I sure hope so. ;) >> > >> > I guess you have some choices: >> > >> > - (easyest) Install linux apache and run whole beast under linux >> > emulation >> > - (much harder) You can try to mix ABI in single binary (just like win >> > or mplayer does with windows DLLs) but, it is not easy task >> > - write module wrapper for apache, it will consist of two parts - one >> > FreeBSD binary (loaded into bsd apache), another - linux (it part >> will >> > load your linux apache module). Parts should be connected by some IPC >> > and apache module interface should be exported via this IPC. >> > [...] >> >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> Seems that I really do have a couple of choices. :) >> >> 1. This seems like the easyest route. I am just a bit worried about >> performance here... I will do a couple of benchmarks though. > > I do not think that you will get significant performance degradation, > but > I think, you can resolve some performance issues building linux apache > under linux gcc using FreeBSD IPC syscalls. Let me try this and get back to you... > > Theoretically bot linux and freebsd apaches should run with same speed > at the end, but, of course there should be some practice issues. > >> 2. This will mean that I will have to change source code in either the >> module or apache. I think this is going to be really hard. :P Is my >> understanding of this correct? (I do not have source for the module) > > I understand that you have no sources, and In order to get all this work > you can do a lot of linking/wrapping magic. > But you should understand what you going to get. I will take the easy way out this time. :) > >> 3. This also sounds like a good option. But, I think this is also going >> to >> be a bit complicated in the end. > > Probably yes, also, I guess it will affect performance much worse then > option 1. I agree. > >> I will do some tests on my side. At least I now know this is not >> possible >> the way I wanted to do it. >> >> Thanks! >> ---Jaco > > -- > Vladimir B. Grebenschikov > vova@fbsd.ru > ---Jaco