From 5b1145432bd23441a6ec28cc66410d679b1ebcef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:54:43 +0100 Subject: open_issues/implementing_hurd_on_top_of_another_system: 2011-02-11 IRC discussion. --- ...implementing_hurd_on_top_of_another_system.mdwn | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) (limited to 'open_issues') diff --git a/open_issues/implementing_hurd_on_top_of_another_system.mdwn b/open_issues/implementing_hurd_on_top_of_another_system.mdwn index 23512aa9..95b71ebb 100644 --- a/open_issues/implementing_hurd_on_top_of_another_system.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/implementing_hurd_on_top_of_another_system.mdwn @@ -78,3 +78,40 @@ IRC, #hurd, 2010-12-28 though I must say that I'm more and more convinced running the Hurd on top of a monolithic kernel would actually be a useful approach for the time being... + +--- + +IRC, #hurd, 2011-02-11 + + marcus and I were discussing how to add Mach to Linux + one could write a module to implement Mach IPC + and another to implement Mach VM + the big thing missing with Mach VM is the ability for a tracing + process to easily map or unmap an inferior process's memory + neal: why would a tracing process need to map the inferior's + memory? + the simple answer is that is how it is done on Mach + neal: is it? not sure we are talking about the same thing + here. GDB uses vm_read()/vm_write() to access the inferior's memory AFAIK + on linux? + I think it use /proc/pid/mem + on Hurd + I'm talking about adding Mach to Linux + by adding some functionality to Linux + and then implementing a bunch in user space + yeah, but I don't understand the point about mapping inferior's + memory :-( + what would be in user space? + there are a number of different cut points + one could imagine just using Linux's device drivers, CPU scheduler, + memory management, etc. + another possibility would be something higher where Hurd processes + just use some Hurdish servers + neal: yeah, these are all options I have been considering... too + bad I wasn't able to come to FOSDEM -- I'd love to have participated in + this discussion :-( + neal: BTW, were you just discussing this as a hypothetical idea, + or something you are seriously considering? + I'm unlikely to work on it, sorry + didn't really expect that :-) + would be nice though if you could write up your conclusions... -- cgit v1.2.3