[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities
From: |
olafBuddenhagen |
Subject: |
Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:02:26 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 05:31:48PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> I really like the idea that I can wrap a device driver in some proxies
> and test the driver using only a device emulation, for example. This
> can be done with proxies, because the driver cannot see if it talks to
> the kernel or not. If it can, it may respond differently to an
> emulation, and that means you're not really testing the driver as it
> will be when used "normally".
>
> This may not be a big thing for you. It's only a feature, and
> certainly something you can do without.
Actually it's a pretty important part of the Hurd design. We need it for
subhurds for example.
While it is possible to provide virtualizable interfaces *above* the
kernel layer, this means things like subhurd are no longer transparent
to the guest, which limits flexibility quite a lot.
-antrik-
- Codezero v0.2 Capabilities, Bahadir Balban, 2009/12/07
- Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities, Tom Bachmann, 2009/12/07
- Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities, Bahadir Balban, 2009/12/07
- Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities, Tom Bachmann, 2009/12/07
- Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities, Sam Mason, 2009/12/08
- Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities, Bahadir Balban, 2009/12/08
- Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities, Sam Mason, 2009/12/08
- Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities, Bahadir Balban, 2009/12/13
- Message not available
- Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities, Bahadir Balban, 2009/12/13
- Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities, Bas Wijnen, 2009/12/13
- Re: Codezero v0.2 Capabilities,
olafBuddenhagen <=