Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Well, it's also a module, so perhaps we should create the whole subtree
:for modules (as was already discussed several times..)
:
:Andrzej Bialecki
Yes, this is very true. But I think we are fooling ourselves if we
believe linux emulation will not become
I kinda like the idea of a top-level compat category; it will keep the
top level uncluttered when sysv and iBCS compatibility start requiring
their own knobs, and if you put linux at the top level this will later
be used as justification for putting all the other "compat" stuff up
there too.
Brian F. Feldman writes:
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brian F.
Feldman" writes:
: I suppose, but wouldn't the proper place be under machdep? I agree that
: a linux top-level MIB would be easiest to remember.
Linux isn't machdep. It
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:2) under "kern.emu.linux"
:3) under "linux"
:
:I vote for 3.
:
:--
:Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
:FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before
:
:On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:
: :2) under "kern.emu.linux"
: :3) under "linux"
: :
: :I vote for 3.
: :
: :--
: :Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
: :[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
: :FreeBSD -- It will take a
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:
:On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:
: :2) under "kern.emu.linux"
: :3) under "linux"
: :
: :I vote for 3.
: :
: :--
: :Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
: :[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Real hackers run
:
:Yeah... Then, the next in line after "linux" are: ibcs2 and svr4 and
:whatever comes next. Can you live with them as main sysctl categories?
:
:Andrzej Bialecki
I think Solaris has a chance, but I doubt any other traditional vendor
UNIXes do. So it comes down to Solaris and Linux for
Yes, this is very true. But I think we are fooling ourselves if we
believe linux emulation will not become 'standard' in the near future.
Then we'll kick ourselves for giving the sysctl's convoluted names :-)
Yeah... Then, the next in line after "linux" are: ibcs2 and svr4
Mike Smith wrote:
Yes, this is very true. But I think we are fooling ourselves if we
believe linux emulation will not become 'standard' in the near future.
Then we'll kick ourselves for giving the sysctl's convoluted names :-)
Yeah... Then, the next in line after
Given that "ABI" is a bit obscure, kern.compat is the only sensible
choice.
I think that is too obscure considering the exposure this will get.
What "exposure"? It's a backend to a tuning interface for our ABI
compatibility...
It doesn't really matter much what we feel about it, linux
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Yes, this is very true. But I think we are fooling ourselves if we
believe linux emulation will not become 'standard' in the near future.
Then we'll kick ourselves for giving the sysctl's convoluted names :-)
Yeah... Then, the
Given that "ABI" is a bit obscure, kern.compat is the only sensible
choice.
One one hand you're right (it is a compatibility stub) but OTOH it is also
a kernel module... ;-)
Perhaps modules like this will want to have their stuff in BOTH places,
i.e. in kernel.compat and in
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
I kinda like the idea of a top-level compat category; it will keep the
top level uncluttered when sysv and iBCS compatibility start requiring
their own knobs, and if you put linux at the top level this will later
be used as justification for
In case anyone cares I'd like to put in a vote for compat.linux.
From the design standpoint this balances the needs of prominence and clean
top level name space nicely.
Doug
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
In case anyone cares I'd like to put in a vote for compat.linux.
From the design standpoint this balances the needs of prominence and clean
top level name space nicely.
And in case it's not clear from the exposition in my message to Poul, I
would find this most agreeable too.
--
\\
* Doug ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [990817 03:40]:
In case anyone cares I'd like to put in a vote for compat.linux.
From the design standpoint this balances the needs of prominence and clean
top level name space nicely.
Count me as another in favor of Mike's explanation.
Like Mike said, there
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcel Moolenaar writes:
Hi,
There're a couple of variables in the Linuxulator that can be put under
sysctl. These include the kernel version and the OSS version, among
probably others.
The question is simply were in the MIB to put them?
1) under "kern.linux"
2)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Brian F.
Feldman" writes:
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The question is simply were in the MIB to put them?
...
3) under "linux"
I vote for 3.
I suppose, but wouldn't the proper place be under machdep? I agree that
a linux top-level MIB would
Hi,
There're a couple of variables in the Linuxulator that can be put under
sysctl. These include the kernel version and the OSS version, among
probably others.
The question is simply were in the MIB to put them?
1) under "kern.linux"
2) under "kern.emu.linux"
3) under "linux"
4) non
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brian F.
Feldman" writes:
: I suppose, but wouldn't the proper place be under machdep? I agree that
: a linux top-level MIB would be easiest to remember.
Linux isn't machdep. It is MI since we could have Linux/Alpha or
Linux/MIPS emulators...
Warner
To
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brian F.
Feldman" writes:
: I suppose, but wouldn't the proper place be under machdep? I agree that
: a linux top-level MIB would be easiest to remember.
Linux isn't machdep. It is MI since we could have Linux/Alpha or
21 matches
Mail list logo
