From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <7871fcf50802181006t5eb75d7cj9ac5197aeebb9dc3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:06:18 -0500
From: "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Page-aligned executables (Was re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling
	conventions)
In-Reply-To: <13426df10802180910g45d2134cs7919137aa6f3661d@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <7871fcf50802180853v7473d507w991517014e3cb4bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<13426df10802180910g45d2134cs7919137aa6f3661d@mail.gmail.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 596df22e-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Feb 18, 2008 12:10 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
> And with the execute in place support (XIP) it gets more interesting,
> and worth understanding, for reasons I'll mention below.

On a related note, in 2002 Russ said he'd implemented, then commented
out, an mmap implementation for Plan 9.  See
/n/sources/contrib/rsc/linuxemu/linuxemu.c for the code.  To make it
work in user-space you'd need user-controlled process creation (which
we've discussed on this list before) along with some extensions to
segattach functionality.  Given the 'joys' of mmap over remote file
systems, we *really* don't want it in Plan 9 as-is!

--Joel