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