Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:01:22 +0200 From: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: starting to commit linuxolator (SoC 2006) changes... Message-ID: <20060817140122.GA90642@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> In-Reply-To: <20060817133721.h4cbucizcw8wc88k@netchild.homeip.net> References: <44E1E85D.5070805@FreeBSD.org> <20060815180713.6a4ee2e6@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >their backwards compatibility.. I've heard of spme people being stuck > >on old > >versions of linux.. maybe the sysctl could stay if there is a problem > >to solve. > > Clarification: the sysctl will stay, the code which disables some > parts based upon the value of the sysctl is supposed to go away (ATM > it's a bad hack which checks the osrelease number *on every call* of 2 > functions). 3 in fact ;) and the code is not that much tested yet so we might see more. > 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 would go with number 3. roman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060817140122.GA90642>