Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:43:53 +0200
From:      Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
To:        Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Cc:        Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, current@freebsd.org, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>
Subject:   Re: HEADS-UP: starting to commit linuxolator (SoC 2006) changes...
Message-ID:  <20060817164352.GB96801@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
In-Reply-To: <44E4881A.3050907@elischer.org>
References:  <20060815212143.G45647@fledge.watson.org> <20060816002328.365a14cd@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20060816090653.GA820@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20060816132539.owwerbnw0okwc8wo@netchild.homeip.net> <20060817080533.GA845@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20060817122534.e57aqlbrwwogg8ko@netchild.homeip.net> <44E4454B.2080606@elischer.org> <20060817133721.h4cbucizcw8wc88k@netchild.homeip.net> <20060817140122.GA90642@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <44E4881A.3050907@elischer.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:15:38AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Divacky Roman wrote:
> 
> >>Anyone with interest in this is free to take care of this, as long as  
> >>they coordinate with the people which work on the current  
> >>infrastructure on emulation@ regarding the userland/security stuff and  
> >>the kernel. Until someone stands up and shows results/progress, this  
> >>is scheduled to vanish in the future.
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >
> >I personally see this 3 possible ways:
> >
> >1) leave it as it is (ie. as what will be commited shortly), this means 
> >runtime
> >checking for osrelease sysctl and behaving according to it
> >
> >2) introduce option LINUX_24 or something like that to make this a compile 
> >time build
> >
> >3) remove the 2.4 completely saying that "if you want 2.4 emulation 
> >downgrade fbsd as well". notice that this is 100% ok because linux itself 
> >doesnt support 2.4 emulation on 2.6 kernel.
> > 
> >
> 
> I think that would be a great selling point..  especially if two 
> processes could run the different releases at the same time..
> "even linux needs vmware to do this..".

this is not hard to implement but remeber that it causes getpid() to be
quite expensive function. and as netchild said - newer glibc doesnt work with
2.4 kernel so unless somone is willing to maintain libc for the old linux_base
there wont be any use for this.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060817164352.GB96801>