From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com (mail-pd0-f175.google.com [209.85.192.175]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47246B0038 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:48:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pdbcz9 with SMTP id cz9so30665209pdb.3 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp. [203.178.142.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fp4si4038146pac.23.2015.03.25.07.48.11 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:48:06 +0900 Message-ID: From: Hajime Tazaki Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] an introduction of library operating system for Linux (LibOS) In-Reply-To: <55118277.5070909@nod.at> References: <1427202642-1716-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <551164ED.5000907@nod.at> <55117565.6080002@nod.at> <55118277.5070909@nod.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: richard@nod.at Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, corbet@lwn.net, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, jdike@addtoit.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, mathieu.lacage@gmail.com At Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:27:51 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > I'd say you should try hard to re-use/integrate your work in arch/um. > With um we already have an architecture which targets userspace, > having two needs a very good justification. in addition to the case of my previous email, libos is not limited to run on user-mode: it is just a library which can be used with various programs. thus it has a potential (not implemented yet) to run on a hypervisor like OSv or MirageOS does for application containment, or run on a bare-metal machine as rumpkernel does. We already have a clear interface for the underlying layer to be able to add such backend. again, it's not only for user-mode. mixing all the stuff in a single architecture may not only mislead to users, but also introduce conceptual-disagreements during code sharing of essential parts. I don't see any benefits to have a name 'um' with this idea. # I'm not saying sharing a part of code is bad idea at all, btw. -- Hajime -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org