[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: L4Mach or Refactor Hurd Servers?

From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: L4Mach or Refactor Hurd Servers?
Date: 11 Nov 2001 15:12:27 -0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7

Farid Hajji <farid.hajji@ob.kamp.net> writes:

> Basically, it proved difficult to emulate the complete Mach API. If you
> want to implement L4Mach, it will most likely provide just a subset of
> Mach, so that we can get the Hurd up and running (in a first step).

Making the Hurd run on L4 should be done by porting it.  Making L4
emulate Mach, in part or in whole, is probably a waste of time.

> The most difficult issue is IMO how you want to handle asynch. IPC,
> especially the notifying mechanism. In the Hurd, you need at various
> parts to detect/receive something called "dead port notification".
> Emulating this on top of L4 (with or without the help of a L4Mach
> server) may be difficult, but I'm not sure yet.

Do you mean dead name notifications, or no-senders notifications?  The
former are not so important.  The latter are very important.

> This is the most important question regarting the port. If the Hurd had
> been designed with other microkernels in mind, it would have certainly
> been more restrictive on its use of mach-specific IPC-ism. 

We *have* been so restrictive.  The need of no-senders is quite
inherent; if you understand what we use them for, it's clear that any
system simply must provide a similar function, whether "asynch" or


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]