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.
That just
> 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
Roland,
> > need to reply like this. Basically, you suggest nothing less than to shut
> > up and do our own non-approved stuff without asking for feedback from the
> > list. This is asking for a split in development :-((( Sad perspectives...,
> > but splits are necessary sometimes.
> I didn't say
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 implementat
>
> 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 so
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 po
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 p
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
> r
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
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
r
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 L4 was the
> > original ide
13 matches
Mail list logo
