On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:35:52AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 07/25/2011 11:31 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> In Ingo's reasoning, the next step would be to rewrite glibc and put >> it into the kernel tree, because we end up adding syscalls so adding >> them to the in-kernel libc with the same commit would be a lot easier >> and cleaner. > > That actually makes a ton of sense. One immediate win would be that > klibc can be tuned to the kernel it ships with (the dynamic loader will > pick the correct object), so less #ifdef trees. Another would be to > make klibc the formal kernel interface, which allows us to reimplement > an older interface in terms of the one that supercedes it. A libc in the kernel tree would indeed make a lot of sense and I am all for it :) It would also help to get new interfaces to the users faster. But it should probably not be the primary exported interface. This would just move the compatability problem from the kernel into user-space. Joerg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
