[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Christmas list for the kernel
    On Tuesday 22 November 2005 16:11, Bill Davidsen wrote:
    > Serious question, when/if xen is in the kernel, is there a reason for
    > UML? If so, why would I use UML instead of xen, and where?

    Xen requires support in the host kernel. UML (skas0 mode) does not.

    I have a build system that uses UML as a better fakeroot. I can't use qemu
    for this because I want to boot borrowing the hosts's filesystem (so the
    build doesn't need a huge binary blob of precompiled stuff to start
    doing ./configure;make;make install with... At that point I might as well
    just distribute the final binaries and be done with it).

    I don't want the thing to require root access, yet the build needs to drop a
    symlink into /, wants to mknod, chown, chroot, and perform --bind and --move

    Fakeroot wouldn't be sufficient because there's no guarantee the host system
    is running a 2.6 kernel (no --bind or --move mounts) and worse, I'm building
    uClibc against the most recent Mazur headers I can find which means the
    resulting uClibc may not run on an older kernel (even running against a
    sufficiently old 2.6 kernel means segfaults due to missing features the new
    headers describe).

    I find UML a very convenient way to get a virtual environment borrowing
    resources from the host without having to set up the host. This means I can
    deploy it to relatively unknown systems, without requiring somebody with root
    access on those systems to replace the kernel and reboot, which generally
    isn't an option.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-11-24 05:21    [W:0.022 / U:35.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site