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>