Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] an introduction of library operating system for Linux (LibOS)

From: Hajime Tazaki<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:48:06 +0900

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 [email-masked].  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email-masked]"> [email-masked] </a>