[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: L4 instead of gnumach?
From: |
OKUJI Yoshinori |
Subject: |
Re: L4 instead of gnumach? |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:50:35 +0900 |
From: Ron Farrer <rbf@farrer.net>
Subject: L4 instead of gnumach?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:17:49 -0700
> To get HURD running on L4 it was decided MIG + cthreads would be
> needed.
I agree to (most of) your reasons, as I'm the first one who thought
of the idea, Hurd/L4 (AFAIK). But I'm afraid that you may understimate
the work. Porting MiG and cthreads is the easiest part of the work,
since they are highly modular, while the rest of the work is far more
difficult.
What are your concrete plans to make Hurd independent of Mach, even
though the design is quite often specific to Mach? If you want better
performance, Mach emulation on L4 should be unacceptable.
BTW, why cthreads? Why won't you switch to pthreads?
Okuji
- L4 instead of gnumach?, Ron Farrer, 2000/10/27
- Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, David Welch, 2000/10/27
- Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Roland McGrath, 2000/10/27
- Re: L4 instead of gnumach?,
OKUJI Yoshinori <=
- Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Ron Farrer, 2000/10/27
- Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Erik Verbruggen, 2000/10/30
- Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Niels Möller, 2000/10/30
- Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Niklas Höglund, 2000/10/30
- Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Erik Verbruggen, 2000/10/30
- Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Niels Möller, 2000/10/30
- Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Erik Verbruggen, 2000/10/30