compiling parts of kernel in userland

Craig Rodrigues rodrigc at FreeBSD.org
Fri Jun 12 02:53:44 UTC 2015


On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:10 AM, K. Macy <kmacy at freebsd.org> wrote:

>
> It's a horrible unmaintainable steaming pile. There are of course no
> objective metrics for such a statement without my wasting hours to go back
> and look through it to come up with a comprehensive explanation. So I
> imagine you'll want to debate this endlessly.
>

No, I'm not interested in debating endlessly.

However, if you had some rough data points as to the downsides
of rump kernels, it would be very useful for others to know what the
problems are.  You have a lot of knowledge, so it is nice to share
your experiences with others.

I've read the whitepapers on rump kernels, and seen some of the
presentations on it.  On the surface, the NetBSD developers who
have worked on rump seem like reasonable and smart folks who put a lot of
hard work into their project.  If I didn't know any better, I would say
their
stuff is good.

If rump is hard to compile on FreeBSD, that is one valid point.
If you have other points besides, "it's a steaming pile", it would be nice
to hear your thoughts.  Otherwise it sounds like "not invented in FreeBSD,
so it sucks".

I recently asked a similar question about xhyve (bhyve for OS X),
and got a simple succinct answer:
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-virtualization/2015-June/003624.html

That's really all that is needed.  If it will take hours to gather that
info,
then I agree, that is a waste of your time.  I'd rather see you contribute
stuff to FreeBSD, possibly using this Github pull requests
using this workflow:

https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2015-April/055551.html

:)

--
Craig



--
Craig


More information about the freebsd-testing mailing list