Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Status of Unifying LKL into UML (v8, Jan 2021) ? #513

Open
AkihiroSuda opened this issue Feb 8, 2023 · 6 comments
Open

Status of Unifying LKL into UML (v8, Jan 2021) ? #513

AkihiroSuda opened this issue Feb 8, 2023 · 6 comments

Comments

@AkihiroSuda
Copy link

I still want to see the Unifying LKL into UML work (v8, Jan 2021) to be merged into the upstream.

Would it be possible to see v9, or the plan was changed?

@lars18th
Copy link

Hi,

Another different, but related question: It will possible to compile UML for different architectures?

@fish4terrisa-MSDSM
Copy link

Hi,

Another different, but related question: It will possible to compile UML for different architectures?

No, I have just tried. It just not work

@lars18th
Copy link

Hi @fish4terrisa-MSDSM ,

Another different, but related question: It will possible to compile UML for different architectures?

No, I have just tried. It just not work

Me too! However, you have any idea about how to add support for any architecture different from x86 and x86_64 with a recent kernel? Can LKL help with this objective?

@fish4terrisa-MSDSM
Copy link

Hi @fish4terrisa-MSDSM ,

Another different, but related question: It will possible to compile UML for different architectures?

No, I have just tried. It just not work

Me too! However, you have any idea about how to add support for any architecture different from x86 and x86_64 with a recent kernel? Can LKL help with this objective?

I think lkl might help,but all the arch-depend codes in arch/x86/um should be replaced by lkl,as Unifying LKL into UML is not finished,it might take more time to support other archs.

@lars18th
Copy link

Hi @fish4terrisa-MSDSM ,

I think lkl might help,but all the arch-depend codes in arch/x86/um should be replaced by lkl,as Unifying LKL into UML is not finished,it might take more time to support other archs.

From your response I feel it's potentially feasible that using LKL implementation we will obtain a replacement of the code in kernel at arch/x86/um. That's true? If yes then I'll try to help to work on this. Any information to read first?

Regards.

@fish4terrisa-MSDSM
Copy link

Hi @fish4terrisa-MSDSM ,

I think lkl might help,but all the arch-depend codes in arch/x86/um should be replaced by lkl,as Unifying LKL into UML is not finished,it might take more time to support other archs.

From your response I feel it's potentially feasible that using LKL implementation we will obtain a replacement of the code in kernel at arch/x86/um. That's true? If yes then I'll try to help to work on this. Any information to read first?

Regards.

Yes,just get a arch-independent replacement of the code in kernel at arch/x86/um then it will work on all platforms.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants