Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:50:25 +0900
Message-ID: <m2pp6tonxa.wl@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
From: Hajime Tazaki <tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To: richard@nod.at
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, corbet@lwn.net, cl@linux.com,
        penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        jdike@addtoit.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, upa@haeena.net,
        christoph.paasch@gmail.com, mathieu.lacage@gmail.com,
        libos-nuse@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/10] an introduction of library operating system for Linux (LibOS)
In-Reply-To: <553A05E9.7040601@nod.at>
References: <1429263374-57517-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
	<1429450104-47619-1-git-send-email-tazaki@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
	<5539F370.9070704@nod.at>
	<m2r3randg5.wl@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
	<553A05E9.7040601@nod.at>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2259
Lines: 67


At Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:59:21 +0200,
Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 24.04.2015 um 10:22 schrieb Hajime Tazaki:
> >> You *really* need to shape up wrt the build process.
> > 
> > at the moment, the implementation of libos can't automate to
> > follow such changes in the build process. but good news is
> > it's a trivial task to follow up the latest function.
> > 
> > my observation on this manual follow up since around 3.7
> > kernel (2.5 yrs ago) is that these changes mostly happened
> > during merge-window of each new version, and the fix only
> > takes a couple of hours at maximum.
> > 
> > I think I can survive with these changes but I'd like to ask
> > broader opinions.
> > 
> > 
> > one more question:
> > 
> > I'd really like to have a suggestion on which tree I should
> > base for libos tree.
> > 
> > I'm proposing a patchset to arnd/asm-generic tree (which I
> > believe the base tree for new arch/), while the patchset is
> > tested with davem/net-next tree because right now libos is
> > only for net/.
> > 
> > shall I propose a patchset based on Linus' tree instead ?
> 
> I'd suggest the following:
> Maintain LibOS in your git tree and follow Linus' tree.

I see. will do it from next patch version.

> Make sure that all kernel releases build and work.
> 
> This way you can experiment with automation and other
> stuff. If it works well you can ask for mainline inclusion
> after a few kernel releases.
> 
> Your git history will show how much maintenance burden
> LibOS has and how much with every merge window breaks and
> needs manual fixup.

I believe this experiment is what we have been doing in the
past a couple of years (it's been tested with net-next tree,
not Linus tree though).

and the experiment is working well (as I stated in the
previous email) and that's why I'm here to propose this
patchset.

you can also see the git history: it also includes libos
specific commits of course.

https://github.com/libos-nuse/net-next-nuse/commits/nuse?author=thehajime


-- Hajime
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/