[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: L4 instead of gnumach?

From: David Welch
Subject: Re: L4 instead of gnumach?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:51:40 +0100 (BST)

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 lists so others can comment/give
> input/flame/whatever on the subject.
> There is real interest in doing this, so please don't brush it off. It
> is only being brought to the lists so others can comment and also so we
> don't butt heads with anyone.
Has how the differences between Mach and L4 IPC might be handled been
discussed, e.g. L4 IPC is strictly synchronous and thread to thread
whereas Mach IPC is partially asynchronous and send and receive rights can
be passed between processes. It seems like it would be possible to emulate
the semantics of Mach IPC on L4, handling transferring receive rights
might be tricky, though that might negate some of the performance
advantages of L4.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]