On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Antti Kantee <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Currently everything is compiled for rumpremote, it should also work
>> in rumprun style too with minor changes.
>
> So what's the current plan with rumprun vs. rumpremote? For rumpremote,
> do we still provide a .-able shell file which sets a path and displays
> $RUMP_SERVER on the prompt? rumprun will still require some different
> sort of handling. I'm thinking about this from the "would be nice to
> have binary packages" angle, but not with any particularly useful results.
>
> In a matrix representation, I think it looks a bit like this:
>
> "userspace" "kernel"
> ===========================
> rump_server
> rumpremote
> rumprun rumprun
>
> ?
Not sure I quite follow the diagram...
One option with rumprun, thinking out loud, is to provide .o files
with main renamed rather than binaries, so you can link them into your
single program. This would need some changes to the build, as netbsd
libc needs to not be linked at that stage but later. So you would end
up with some .o files that you link into your binary and can call
ifconfig_main(...) in order to configure your network. Alternatively
could bundle a bunch of them into a util library, maybe with a
slightly easier interface using varargs so it is ifconfig("lo0", ...).
This would be the simple option to add to your standalone rump based
program for adding config.
Justin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech
_______________________________________________
rumpkernel-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rumpkernel-users
