[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup
From: |
Neal H Walfield |
Subject: |
Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:15:09 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1 |
> 1. You must at least bootstrap the Hurd _and_ the root filesystem server,
> before you can use nameservice under the Hurd. This is not a problem
> under Mach, because Mach already knows about its pager and Mach also
> already provides devices to access the disks etc... Under L4, things
> are not so readily available. To bootstrap the Hurd, 'boot' will
> need to get the vk-l4 pager _and_ vk-l4 superdriver TIDs first. This
> would be only possible through a vk-l4 nameserver [or the less than
> optimal hard-coding of TIDs] at this stage.
>
> Put another way: this is the old chicken-and-egg problem ;-)
The same problem exists in Mach and the Hurd. Take a look at how we
bootstrap the Hurd (either the new of the old server boot code) and
the simplicity of this solution should become quite evident. I assume
that a similar implementation could be done for L4 and the Hurd.
> 2. A vk-l4 nameserver would be useful to other personalities like l4linux
> (modified) or anything else as well. Such personalities would like to
> use L4 (or vk-l4) without having to boot the Hurd first, just to get
> a nameserver. The responsibilities of the Hurd's nameserver (mechanism)
> and the lower-level VK/L4 nameserver are distinct and serve different
> purposes. I could expand more on this, but would prefer to postpone
> the discussion of this for later.
Two Hurd cannot talk to each. Why should they except via an (as to be
written) distributed interface?
> There are other technical reasons that advocate spearating the Hurd's
> and a VK/L4 nameserver. One of these reasons is proper layering. The
> VK/L4 infrastructure resides one layer below every OS personality,
> including the Hurd. It would not be wise to mix layers here by using
> upcalls from L4 to the Hurd (or something else), just to name one
> example.
I am not convinced. And, I see no reason that L4 would be making any
upcalls.
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, (continued)
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Ian Duggan, 2001/10/25
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Debian UserAd Buijsen, 2001/10/26
- Network-transparent IPC (was Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup), Michael Hohmuth, 2001/10/29
- Re: Network-transparent IPC (was Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup), Farid Hajji, 2001/10/30
- Re: Network-transparent IPC (was Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup), Michael Hohmuth, 2001/10/30
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Farid Hajji, 2001/10/29
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Farid Hajji, 2001/10/29
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Niels Möller, 2001/10/30
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Espen Skoglund, 2001/10/30
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Farid Hajji, 2001/10/29
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup,
Neal H Walfield <=
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Farid Hajji, 2001/10/29
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Neal H Walfield, 2001/10/30
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Christian Ceelen, 2001/10/25
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Niels Möller, 2001/10/25
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Farid Hajji, 2001/10/29
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2001/10/25
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Farid Hajji, 2001/10/29
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Lars Reuther, 2001/10/30
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Farid Hajji, 2001/10/29
- Re: vk_l4 -- CVS Setup, Neal H Walfield, 2001/10/30