[openbeos] Re: Kernel status (POSIX)
- From: "Nathan Whitehorn" <nathan.whitehorn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:37:58 -0600 (CST)
> >In regard to kernel design, I would propose that we adopt an MS-Mach
> >(multiserver, not Microsoft) like approach, albeit with kernel space
> >"servers" as kernel addons. Thus, we could have an fs module that
> >handles file desrciptors, etc, a posix module, etc., etc., etc. This
> >would accomplish two things:
>
> To some degree, this is what BeOS already did/does.
> BFS is a file system add-on. Many things were/are.
> In fact, you can add almost anything, as I understand it,
> to the BeOS kernel by making a kernel add-on.
No, no, no, you misunderstood completely. I, of course, want
filesystems as addons, but I also want the code that loads the
filesystem addons to be an addon. Nor can you add anything to the
kernel; your efforts in this regard are severely circumscribed. For
instance, you can't write an addon that intercepts syscalls, which
would, of course, be required for a posix addon.
> >2. It vastly increases the future flexibility of the kernel.
>
> I don't know that much about MS-Mach - why not mail me offlist
> and we can chat about it.
Sure, all right.
-Nathan
--
Fortune Cookie Says:
"If you understand what you're doing, you're not learning anything."
-- A. L.
Other related posts: