[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: APIs and compatibility
From: |
Jonathan S. Shapiro |
Subject: |
Re: APIs and compatibility |
Date: |
Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:57:50 -0400 |
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 11:55 +0200, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> At Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:02:40 -0400,
> Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > It strikes me that rebuilding a very large number of drivers as a
> > precondition to success is probably not a good recipe.
> >
> > Is there any reason why the linux driver framework cannot be adopted
> > directly by l4-ng? I do understand that user-supplied drivers are
> > desirable, and I think that remains possible in all of the practical
> > use-cases that have come up here.
>
> Although custom drivers offer the best potenial quality, writing new
> drivers for all hardware is impractical. So there must be some reuse.
> However, some reuse does not imply that all drivers must be reused.
> That is, very common hardware or essential hardware can be provided by
> native drivers and the rest by way of reuse.
I agree with all of these points. But this does imply that certain
*interfaces* from Linux become mandatory: those that in SVR4 would have
been called the "Driver Kernel Interface". This is ad hoc in Linux, but
it exists.
> This hair can be avoided by reusing Linux in its entirety. In this
> case, Linux is run on a VMM and the new operating system makes calls
> to the Linux driver instance. Two examples of this are Afterburner or
> Xen. Both use a paravirtualized Linux instance.
But if this is done, what is the advantage of having a microkernel at
all?
shap
- Re: APIs and compatibility,
Jonathan S. Shapiro <=