diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'faq/which_microkernel')
| -rw-r--r-- | faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn | 61 |
1 files changed, 61 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn b/faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn index 9ef3b915..7ea131e9 100644 --- a/faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn +++ b/faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn @@ -1,3 +1,20 @@ +[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] + +[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable +id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this +document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or +any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant +Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license +is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation +License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] + +[[!tag open_issue_documentation]] + +[[!toc]] + + +# Olaf, 2011-04-10 + This version mixes up three distinct phases: rewrite from scratch; redesign; own microkernel. @@ -31,3 +48,47 @@ to the Coyotos port -- which after all is what the title promises... All in all, I still think my text was better. If you have any conerns with it, please discuss them... + + +# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-09-27 + + <cjuner> Does anyone remember/know if/why not seL4 was considered for + hurd-l4? Is anyone aware of any differences between seL4 and coyotos? + + +## 2011-09-28 + + <antrik> cjuner: the seL4 project was only at the beginning when the + decision was made. so was Coyotos, but Shapiro promised back then that + building on EROS, it would be done very fast (a promise he couldn't keep + BTW); plus he convinced the people in question that it's safer to build + on his ideas... + <antrik> it doesn't really matter though, as by the time the ngHurd people + were through with Coyotos, they had already concluded that it doesn't + make sense to build upon *any* third-party microkernel + <cjuner> antrik, what was the problem with coyotos? what would be the + problem with sel4 today? + <cjuner> antrik, yes I did read the FAQ. It doesn't mention seL4 at all + (there isn't even much on the hurd-l4 mailing lists, I think that being + due to seL4 not having been released at that point?) and it does not + specify what problems they had with coyotos. + <antrik> cjuner: it doesn't? I thought it mentioned "newer L4 variants" or + something like that... but the text was rewritten a couple of times, so I + guess it got lost somewhere + <antrik> cjuner: unlike original L4, it's probably possible to implement a + system like the Hurd on top on seL4, just like on top of + Coyotos. however, foreign microkernels are always created with foreign + design ideas in mind; and building our own design around them is always + problematic. it's problematic with Mach, and it will be problematic with + any other third-party microkernel + <antrik> Coyotos specifically has different ideas about memory protection, + different ideas about task startup, different ideas about memory + handling, and different ideas about resource allocation + <cjuner> antrik, do any specific problems of the foreign designs, + specifically of seL4 or coyotos come to mind? + <antrik> cjuner: I mentioned several for Coyotos. I don't have enough + understanding of the matters to go into much more detail + <antrik> (and I suspect you don't have enough understanding of these + matters to take away anything useful from more detail ;-) ) + <antrik> I could try to explain the issues I mentioned for Coyotos (as far + as I understand them), but would that really help you? |