On Tuesday 08 November 2005 09:46, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:09:06AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > > > So I don't care about systemcall interception or anything like that, > > > > *blink* *blink* > > > > Ok, you want user mode linux, but you don't want it to actually run user > > processes, nor do want it to be able to intercept system calls. > > > > Um... What's left? > > Only all of Linux. It so happens that I want exactly the same thing for > libUML, except I haven't had time to do anything about it. > > Try to think a little before calling someone's project dumb.
Sorry, wasn't trying to call it dumb. (I linked to a similar patch for ripping out lots of "unnecessary" infrastructure, which Rik found dumb because there was really no advantage to removing it. I should have clarified that _my_ question was "Why?".) I didn't understand what he was trying to do. (Hard to ponder implementing something if you don't know what it would do.) A test harness for isolated kernel functions is something I can at least imagine... Rob ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
