[openbeosnetteam] Re: Kernel move...

Why do you think they don't need a syscall? Why is the driver more
extensible?

david

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Whitehorn" <nathan.whitehorn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 10:25 PM
Subject: [openbeosnetteam] Re: Kernel move...


> > So, we finally have the beginnings of a new kernel in CVS!
> >
> > The plan is to start moving some of our code into the "new" tree as
> > soon as
> > I can figure out how to make it all work :) Thought I'd share with
> > you the
> > basics of what I'm planning to do.
> >
> > The following code gets moved into the kernel proper...
> > - mbuf's
> > - pools (although he has soemthing similar already so I'll have a
> > look at
> > thats
> > - sockets (including the main syscalls, i.e. accept, bind, select,
> > listen
> > etc etc)
> > - sockbufs
>
> I remain in the position that there is absolutely no reason whatever
> that sockets need have their own syscalls: the current system works
> quite well and is vastly more extensible.
>
> > The other stuff goes into a new net_core kernel module. In other
> > words
> > - routing
> > - domains
> > - protocol management
> >
> > Then the protocol modules get added as modules just as now.
> >
> > How does that sound to people?
>
> Other than sockets, pretty good.
> -Nathan
>
> --
> Fortune Cookie Says:
>
> Show respect for age.  Drink good Scotch for a change.
>
> --
> Fortune Cookie Says:
>
> He hadn't a single redeeming vice.
> -- Oscar Wilde
>
> --
> Fortune Cookie Says:
>
> He who Laughs, Lasts.
>
> --
> Fortune Cookie Says:
>
> "Of course power tools and alcohol don't mix.  Everyone knows power
> tools aren't soluble in alcohol ..."
> -- Crazy Nigel
>
>
>

Other related posts: