[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mach on L4
Re: Mach on L4
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 02:38:37 +0200
> > > [...] I envision more of a portability layer with an interface
> > > similar to that of the Linux kernel's architecture-dependent part
> > > (although hopefully a bit cleaner). Let's call this KAL
> > > (``kernel-abstraction layer'') for a moment.
> > As a *BSD-guy, I'm not very familiar with Linux internals, so I'll
> > have to figure out what you mean with "architecture-dependent part"
> > by diving in Linux's sources ;-). I'm acquainted to FreeBSD und NetBSD
> > internals though, so I can roughly imagine what you mean here.
> To get the general idea, have a look at
> (Postscript version at
> In that report, I documented part of Linux' architecture-adaption
> layer's interface. (The report corresponds to an ancient version of
> Linux, but it should be enough to give you the idea.) Yes, I guess
> that it is similar to the BSDs' portability layer's interface.
Thanks, that is what I expected. Both Linux' and BSD's portability
layers are quite similar, but they differ in some places as well.
> > > - Don't assume your basic RPC mechanism can transfer system-object
> > > handles
> > > (handles for threads, address spaces, etc.).
> > I understand the rationale behind this. It seems like this will be quite
> > hard to enforce though. Okay, I'll try to come up with a basic model.
> > I'd need help here though (suggestions, ideas, etc.)...
> Your KAL interface doesn't have to have the same restriction, as long
> as a KAL implementation can deal with the issue internally.
OK, I'll have a first try at it and it will be always possible to
cleanup up the design in a few iterations before we start hacking.
Farid Hajji -- Unix Systems and Network Admin | Phone: +49-2131-67-555
Broicherdorfstr. 83, D-41564 Kaarst, Germany | address@hidden
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - -
One OS To Rule Them All And In The Darkness Bind Them... --Bill Gates.
- SawMill Multiserver vs. the Hurd, Farid Hajji, 2001/07/05
- Message not available
- Re: SawMill Multiserver vs. the Hurd, Farid Hajji, 2001/07/06
- Mach on L4 (was Re: SawMill Multiserver vs. the Hurd), Michael Hohmuth, 2001/07/12
- Re: Mach on L4 (was Re: SawMill Multiserver vs. the Hurd), Farid Hajji, 2001/07/17
- Re: Mach on L4, Michael Hohmuth, 2001/07/18
- Re: Mach on L4, Farid Hajji, 2001/07/18
- Re: Mach on L4, Michael Hohmuth, 2001/07/19
- Re: Mach on L4, Farid Hajji, 2001/07/20
- Re: Mach on L4, Michael Hohmuth, 2001/07/22
- Re: Mach on L4,
Farid Hajji <=
- Re: Mach on L4, Jan Atle Ramsli, 2001/07/23
- Re: Mach on L4, Farid Hajji, 2001/07/24