Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?

[Ron Farrer]

OKUJI Yoshinori (okuji@kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp) 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 the rest of the work is far more
> difficult.

I know it will be a RPITA, but one that I feel will be worth it in the
long run. 

>   What are your concrete plans to make Hurd independent of Mach, even
> though the design is quite often specific to Mach? If you want better
> performance, Mach emulation on L4 should be unacceptable.

This is not completely decided. A MACH emulation layer for L4 was the
original idea, but I'm completely open to other suggestions. 

>   BTW, why cthreads? Why won't you switch to pthreads?

MACH uses cthreads, we figured it would keep things easier by going that
route. If you think otherwise I'd like to know why? 

Overall we want to give HURD some type of direction to go and some type
of common goal for development. 

Ron

pgpubjFJLlsTI.pgp
Description: PGP signature