From owner-freebsd-emulation Tue Mar 14 11:56:33 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F5E37B7E1 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:56:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16902; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:56:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) id OAA08229; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:55:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:55:53 -0500 (EST) To: Marcel Moolenaar Cc: The Hermit Hacker , freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VMWare port(s) ... In-Reply-To: <38CE7645.F59CB8DA@cup.hp.com> References: <38CE7645.F59CB8DA@cup.hp.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Message-ID: <14542.37673.790614.348267@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Marcel Moolenaar writes: > The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > > Is anyone working on getting the rtc/linux_procfs ports brought into the > > main stream, as well as the vmware port itself upgraded? > > Having a Linux compatible procfs for Linux binaries has been on my TODO > list for some time. I'm not currently working on that, though. I > personally prefer a procfs implementation that doesn't need to be loaded > as a module, but is part of the Linuxulator itself and also uses /proc > as the mount point. Such an implementation is less confusing (ie doesn't > generate a stream of questions of which the answer is: "load > linux_procfs" :-). The expected infrastructural changes in the kernel to > have the proper procfs implementation depending on the ABI also helps > other emulators. Such an approach seems beneficial... > > Thoughts, ideas or other comments? > Sure. Ditch our native procfs & adopt the linux procfs interface as standard (eg, mount it on /proc). This would allow us to do away with most of the groveling around in kvm & thereby most of the problems caused by running kernels which are mismatched to their userlands. As a long-time -current user, I'm really quite jealous that you can mix-n-match linux kernels & userlands. Sure, there would be a few more gnu programs in src/contrib, but it would be so much easier to deal with. (ducks, runs for cover..) Drew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Gallatin, Sr Systems Programmer http://www.cs.duke.edu/~gallatin Duke University Email: gallatin@cs.duke.edu Department of Computer Science Phone: (919) 660-6590 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message