Hello, On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:46 PM, <olafbuddenha...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 08:07:37AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: >> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:13 PM, <olafbuddenha...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> > The real problem is organisational: changing an existing interface >> > is a very fundamental decision, and the current maintainer situation >> > regarding the Hurd means that there is nobody to approve such >> > fundamental changes... It would be very hard ever to merge it into >> > the mainline :-( >> >> Hm... Does this mean that we are somehow discouraged to do any changes >> to things that already exist in the Hurd?.. > > Well, I don't really want to discourage it... Just pointing out that > it's problematic :-(
I see... However, I hope that the idea with O_NOTRANS special functionality will work and we will not have the necessity to do any modifications to anything already existing. >> I'm afraid I fail to see in which way Zheng's changes are less >> fundamental than the changes we are inclined to do to an existing >> interface :-) > > His work extends existing functionality, but doesn't change the > interfaces. It this sense, it's a less fundamental modification... I see... > Also, you might have noticed that none of his work got merged to the > mainline so far -- not even the relatively simple patches :-( I thought I've simply missed the occasion when the patches had been merged... >> A fundamental (probably) question: when you say ``translator stacking >> framework'', do you refer to the existing mechanism of stacking >> translators or to some future possibility? (the one about fast >> translator startup or something like this, probably?) > > There is no "framework" part nor even a special mechanism for stacking > translators in the ordinary fashion, so obviously I'm not talking about > that. I mean a framework for optimizing translator stacking, i.e. the > "object mobility" stuff Fredrik is working on. This is clear. I'm setting sail to read your discussion right now. (Unfourtunately, I had very little time to read the discussion recently). >> > (Actually, there are still two processes -- but the functionality of >> > one of them is migrated over to the other, so one becomes an empty >> > shell, and the other does all the work.) >> >> Hm... Sounds great :-) How do we achieve that? ;-) > > By the devices of a mighty magician called Dynamic Linking... I see... > Seriously, the details are still all very open. Moreover, they have been > and are being discussed in other threads. No need to repeat it here. Clear. Regards, scolobb
