On 31 Oct, Farid Hajji wrote:
>> If you just want to examine the L4 API, you might just as well use
>> L4Linux; all L4 system calls are available. There is also a small
>> multi-server OS available for L4KA which would make interesting study
>> material.
> A small multi-server OS for L4Ka? Wher
From: Erik Verbruggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:09:58 +0100
> Um, how quickly will HURD/the HURD people switch to pthreads? I mean,
> we want to run HURD on top of it, and HURD uses cthreads at the moment.
> If you just want to examine the L4 API, you might just as well use
> L4Linux; all L4 system calls are available. There is also a small
> multi-server OS available for L4KA which would make interesting study
> material.
A small multi-server OS for L4Ka? Where? I'm running L4ka's template
root_
Ad Buijsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The HURD relies heavily on mach: ports are used profusely and threads
> are assumed to be available in bucketloads. L4 offers nothing like
> ports and the maximum numbers of threads per task is quite limited.
> There are ways to overcome the latter, but
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:18:48PM +0100, Erik Verbruggen wrote:
> > My concerns last time I looked at L4 was
> >
> > (i) It was written in C++, which I dislike (that's a religious
> > question, and this is not the right place to argue the details).
>
> Erm, ok, you took that implementati
>
> However, I think Mach emulation would be a good thing as the first
> step, because you will be able to investigate how different L4 is from
> Mach and what would be necessary to be done in details. But I'd like
> to point out that Mach emulation should be temporary but not a
> permanent sol
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 06:28:41PM +0100, Niels Möller wrote:
> Erik Verbruggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ok, I think the L4 stuff needs a bit of background. Special for Niels: I
> > started doing a Sparc port, but there were some problems which are
> > similair to those that the Alpha por
Erik Verbruggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I think the L4 stuff needs a bit of background. Special for Niels: I
> started doing a Sparc port, but there were some problems which are
> similair to those that the Alpha port has, so that's why I react.
Thanks for the info. I've tried browsing
*long explanation alert*
Ok, I think the L4 stuff needs a bit of background. Special for Niels: I
started doing a Sparc port, but there were some problems which are
similair to those that the Alpha port has, so that's why I react.
(oh, and I have an Alpha, so I'm also interested in the Alpha po
On 30 Oct 2000, Niels Möller wrote:
> Erik Verbruggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> What about security? I don't know L4 much (although a read some paper
> on it a long time ago, the last time Hurd on L4 was discussed). My
> impression was that L4 was a lot different from Mach. As the HURD
> re
Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Great! Let's see what everyone thinks. If the majory think this is
> worthwile (I do, and hope everyone else does) then we'll see how we can=20
> organize specific tasks for people...=20
I could cast my vote here, but that would be pointless. It doesn't
re
Erik Verbruggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Indeed. The nice thing about L4 is that it's simple and lean, and
> therefore fast. The emulation layer will definitely reduce speed. For
> example with IPC: I think the way to emulate the Mach behaviour (and to
> circumvent the page alignment) is to c
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 09:14:18AM +0900, OKUJI Yoshinori wrote:
> From: Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:19:30 -0700
>
> > This is not completely decided. A MACH emulation layer for
OKUJI Yoshinori ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> To understand why Mach emulation is bad, you need to know how L4
> improved IPC performance. They have improved the performance in
> various aspects, but in simple words, they made IPC semantics more
> lean. If you add the extra flesh again, the perfo
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 09:38:17PM -0400, Igor Khavkine wrote:
> I agree, if Mach is taken out of the picture there is no reason to stick with
> Mach legacy like cthreads and even MIG. MIG is not a very good IDL language
> it's highly Mach specific (duh Mach Interface Generator) and only supports
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:17:49PM -0700, Ron Farrer wrote:
>
> Hello all;
Hello,
>
> Many of us have had a discussion in #hurd on irc.openprojects.net. The
> discussion was about replacing gnumach with L4.
>
> Reasons for doing this:
> [..]
>
> There is real interest in doing this, so please
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 09:14:18AM +0900, OKUJI Yoshinori wrote:
> > MACH uses cthreads, we figured it would keep things easier by going that
> > route. If you think otherwise I'd like to know why?
>
> Isn't your (ultimate) goal to remove Mach-things from Hurd? cthreads
> is a Mach-only multith
From: Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:19:30 -0700
> This is not completely decided. A MACH emulation layer for L4 was the
> original idea, but I'm completely open to other suggestions.
To un
OKUJI Yoshinori ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I agree to (most of) your reasons, as I'm the first one who thought
> of the idea, Hurd/L4 (AFAIK). But I'm afraid that you may understimate
> the work. Porting MiG and cthreads is the easiest part of the work,
> since they are highly modular, while t
From: Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: L4 instead of gnumach?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:17:49 -0700
> To get HURD running on L4 it was decided MIG + cthreads would be
> needed.
I agree to (most of) your reasons, as I'm the first one who thought
of the idea, Hurd/L4
> 1. No one really wants to work on gnumach.
> 2. OSkit-mach is too slow. The COM interface in oskit is (IMO) too
> bloated (this is in regards to many people saying "use oskit-mach").
Do you mean relative to gnumach or just in general?
Noone has reported anything about performance of oskit-mach
Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many of us have had a discussion in #hurd on irc.openprojects.net. The
> discussion was about replacing gnumach with L4.
Yes, I was one of them. :]
> Reasons for doing this:
[...]
To add: We need a well defined goal, I think; a design which doesn't
chan
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Ron Farrer wrote:
>
> To get HURD running on L4 it was decided MIG + cthreads would be needed.
> A device driver interface would also be need. The device driver
> interface hasn't be discussed yet, but the rest has. It was decided this
> discussion should be taken to these li
Hello all;
Many of us have had a discussion in #hurd on irc.openprojects.net. The
discussion was about replacing gnumach with L4.
Reasons for doing this:
1. No one really wants to work on gnumach.
2. OSkit-mach is too slow. The COM interface in oskit is (IMO) too
bloated (this is in regards to
24 matches
Mail list logo
