[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.

Fortune Cookie Says:

"If you understand what you're doing, you're not learning anything."
                -- A. L.

Other related posts: