Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Marko Zec writes:
>> [about vimage]

>
> One thing you haven't mentioned is sysctl. I've always been of the
> opinion that if we virtualize one part of the system, we should also
> virtualize the sysctl tree. This does not mean that each vimage should
> have its own copy of the entire tree, but rather that it should be
> possible to mark some sysctl nodes as virtualized. For instance, it
> would be useful on amd64 to be able to create an i386 vimage, where
> hw.machine and hw.machine_arch would be "i386".
>
> For PROC nodes, of course, this is easily done (as you already do) with
> INIT_VPROCG(TD_TO_VPROGC(curthread)), but the basic node types (int,
> long, string etc.) are a little trickier, and don't seem to be handled
> in your patch.
>
> (I probably just lost every shred of credibility by revealing that I
> have actually read parts of the patch, but hey, them's the breaks...)


Yes the sysctl tree has had some virtualisation support
added to it (!) I was impressed, even if there is more to do.

It's only used at this time to show the correct sysctls relevant
to your network stack due to the scope if the vimage project
but could be used for other virtualised things now the framework
is there. Of course that is outside the vimage scope but others
could do that..


>
> DES


_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/lis...reebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"