Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:56:10 -0500 From: Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com> To: "Divacky Roman" <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: starting to commit linuxolator (SoC 2006) changes... Message-ID: <2fd864e0608171556o6af3e1fdxa29c252f07c98444@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060817164352.GB96801@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <20060815212143.G45647@fledge.watson.org> <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> <20060817164352.GB96801@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/17/06, Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> wrote: > > 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. Would it be possible to maintain 2 sets? Basically, leave the old stuff avalible, but require some sysctl or compile-time setting to use it... if no one steps up to maintain it, let it rot. If someone wants to deal with it... let 'em! --- Harrison
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2fd864e0608171556o6af3e1fdxa29c252f07c98444>