|
From: Emil O. <em...@mi...> - 2000-10-18 17:07:30
|
Great, I'll get started on the SMP stuff, then. I realized that I have an easier option on the porting side, too. I have regular access to Solaris machines (SPARC), so I might be able to give porting a try there. Hopefully it won't be too difficult (certainly not more than windows :) Emil On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Jeff Dike wrote: > em...@mi... said: > > I'm interested in helping out with UML if it's needed or wanted. > > Sure. The more the merrier. > > > What exactly is the status of SMP in UML now? > > It's the victim of bitrot. It's been allowed to atrophy. > > > If SMP isn't in UML now, how should SMP be defined for it? > > The only thing needed to support SMP is to make sure that the arch code is > SMP-safe. All of the other support is there. I've put some #errors in where > I know something is not SMP-safe. It will fail to compile if you turn on SMP > and try to build it. > > So, those need fixing, and a scan through the rest of the arch code would need > to be done and locking added as needed. > > If you don't know what SMP-safety is, let me know, and I'll see how well I can > explain it. > > > Finally, I use to be fluent in broken French, so maybe I could work on > > translating the web site. > > That would be cool... > > There are some other projects which would be interesting. Near the top of the > list is a 'hostfs' filesystem which provides access to the host filesystem. > This would be a virtual filesystem which plugs into the VFS layer and converts > vfs calls into their libc equivalents. > > If you want more choices, let me know. I can probably think of some... > > Jeff > > |