> >their backwards compatibility.. I've heard of spme people being stuck > >on old > >versions of linux.. maybe the sysctl could stay if there is a problem > >to solve. > > Clarification: the sysctl will stay, the code which disables some > parts based upon the value of the sysctl is supposed to go away (ATM > it's a bad hack which checks the osrelease number *on every call* of 2 > functions). 3 in fact ;) and the code is not that much tested yet so we might see more. > Anyone with interest in this is free to take care of this, as long as > they coordinate with the people which work on the current > infrastructure on emulation_at_ regarding the userland/security stuff and > the kernel. Until someone stands up and shows results/progress, this > is scheduled to vanish in the future. I personally see this 3 possible ways: 1) leave it as it is (ie. as what will be commited shortly), this means runtime checking for osrelease sysctl and behaving according to it 2) introduce option LINUX_24 or something like that to make this a compile time build 3) remove the 2.4 completely saying that "if you want 2.4 emulation downgrade fbsd as well". notice that this is 100% ok because linux itself doesnt support 2.4 emulation on 2.6 kernel. I would go with number 3. romanReceived on Thu Aug 17 2006 - 12:01:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:59 UTC