Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:56:26 -0500 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@cup.hp.com> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Cc: alpha@FreeBSD.ORG, marcel@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Somebody broke the linux module on the Alpha. Message-ID: <3A24705A.2CD9F280@cup.hp.com> References: <20001128163140.A43087@dragon.nuxi.com> <14884.23034.111469.296831@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <3A245E45.B9CD44F7@cup.hp.com> <14884.24258.132073.308507@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > The following patch "fixes" the problem, but I have no clue if it > > > is safe for x86, buildworlds, etc: > > > > At this time the best fix is to remove the auto-generation. It also > > allows us to compile the Linuxulator into the kernel, which I think is > > necessary (what applies to i386, applies to Alpha as well. Otherwise the > > Alpha would be nothing more than a secundary port). > > Excuse me? Why the preoccupation with compiling it into the kernel? Because we say that we unconditionally support the COMPAT_LINUX option, while in fact we don't. I think it's necessary, because we shouldn't have a different policy for each architecture. There's no technical reason to not support COMPAT_LINUX on the Alpha (there's a technical reason to not support it on IA-64, because the Linuxulator hasn't been ported yet). > What advantage is there to this? Not everybody likes modules and we shouldn't gratuitously prevent those users from compiling the Linuxulator into the kernel. The fact that Alpha != i386 doesn't mean that we have different rules, right? The Linuxulator port is simply not finished. We're just halfway through... -- Marcel Moolenaar mail: marcel@cup.hp.com / marcel@FreeBSD.org tel: (408) 447-4222 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A24705A.2CD9F280>