ngHurd (was: Re: Device drivers in Mach?)
Hi, On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 10:08:35AM -0400, Barry deFreese wrote: I suppose that depends on who you ask. Some of the bigwigs are looking at a totally new system based on Coyotos. Minor nitpick: My latest impression was that Marcus doesn't have any preference for Coyotos anymore; the new L4 variants seem to be considered equal, or even better candidates. -antrik- ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Re: Device drivers in Mach?
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:00:29PM +0100, Richard Braun wrote: Mach is old [...] [...] Hurd on L4 project is stalled [...] Sooo... what's the plan? Stay with Mach and feed that old stuff? Leslie -- NEW homepage: https://viridian.dnsalias.net/~sky/homepage/ gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys DD4EBF83 pgpI6RTZbiYXK.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Re: Device drivers in Mach?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:00:29PM +0100, Richard Braun wrote: Mach is old [...] [...] Hurd on L4 project is stalled [...] Sooo... what's the plan? Stay with Mach and feed that old stuff? Leslie I suppose that depends on who you ask. Some of the bigwigs are looking at a totally new system based on Coyotos. Some of us are trying to do what we can with Mach, while Richard is writing a mach-compatible replacement that I don't believe he intends to actually utilize for Hurd but I may be wrong there. I personally liked the idea of L4 but apparently there were technical concerns that were way over my head. (Though from what I understand, some of the new derivatives of L4 might be more compatible). Welcome to Free Software. You are welcome to do whatever you wish, which means everyone does what they want and no one steers the ship! :-) Barry deFreese (aka bddebian) ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Re: Device drivers in Mach?
Scribit Barry deFreese dies 22/03/2007 hora 10:08: (Though from what I understand, some of the new derivatives of L4 might be more compatible). Yes, both Coyotos and L4.sec would provide the needed features, IIUC. The thing is, Coyotos is developed more openly with some hard deadlines, wheras L4.sec, even if it should be released under a free license, seems to be developed in a more closed way, and with no guarantee about its availability. Which makes Coyotos the best candidate so far for the µ-kernel of a next Hurd... Quickly, Pierre -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Re: Device drivers in Mach?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Hello Leslie when I went to the task page with notes on the coming sound system, I noticed that it's written there that device drivers go into Mach. Why is that? I thought a big point of micro kernels was that a single malfunctioning driver couldn't affect the whole system because it doesn't sit in �admin� space. Your observation is correct. All of Mach's drivers currently reside inside the kernel. AFAIK, Mach's IPC is too slow to support user space drivers. When Mach was created at Carnegie Mellon, they had experimented with user space drivers and observed the above conclusion. I'm sure that the senior members of this project can give you more detailed info on the subject than me. However, processors have gotten *a lot* faster the last ten years since Mach's creation, so i have a few reservations if the current IPC system is completely unusable with user space drivers. Once again, the senior members of this project can shed more light on the subject. Regards, Constantine ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Re: Device drivers in Mach?
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:01:35PM +0200, Constantine Kousoulos wrote: Your observation is correct. All of Mach's drivers currently reside inside the kernel. AFAIK, Mach's IPC is too slow to support user space drivers. Phew. Don't they have that in Minix? I think I remember starting the Realtek network driver in user space. What a delighting experience. However, processors have gotten *a lot* faster the last ten years since Mach's creation, so i have a few reservations if the current IPC system is completely unusable with user space drivers. Once again, the senior members of this project can shed more light on the subject. The only reason for me that would make me start helping with GNU/Hurd would be device drivers (and most of the other stuff) in user space, since Linux crashes too often when faulty hardware or drivers are at play... I'd appreciate more input on this, and why I would want a microkernel architecture that isn't really one (IMHO)... What about L4? Leslie -- NEW homepage: https://viridian.dnsalias.net/~sky/homepage/ gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys DD4EBF83 pgpilopoVsa13.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
