From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] an introduction of library operating system for Linux (LibOS) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:27:51 +0100 Message-ID: <55118277.5070909@nod.at> References: <1427202642-1716-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <551164ED.5000907@nod.at> <55117565.6080002@nod.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 To: Hajime Tazaki Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Am 24.03.2015 um 16:24 schrieb Hajime Tazaki: > I was thinking that such 'architectural' differences in core > idea (like system call handling, execution model, process > context design, etc) is better to have a different architecture > even if some part of the code is similar. > > Isn't it also the same to the other 'hardware-dependent' > architectures' case like between arm and arm64 ? > > of course I'm also happy to share the code between us, > especially _pure_ userspace part like (virtual) NIC with > tap or pcap because we also need that part, but we kept such > code at an external codebase (i.e., linux-libos-tools). 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. Thanks, //richard -- 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