Re: drivers for l4-hurd

[Daniel Wagner]

Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 02:04:00PM +0100, Maurizio Boriani wrote:
>> IMHO a generic device driver system based upon l4 (X.1 on X.2) could be
>> a better solution instand of a hurd-only solution. In this way other
>> OS project l4 based (l4linux, fresco and so on) could use this 
>> "device driver api" and also contribute.
> And just wrapping a generic thing into translators would solve the problem
> of attaching the whole translator tree to a filesystem that has to live on
> top of it to access its storage =)

The basic idea we had, was that we don't want to add unnecessary
overhead to the framework. I agree with you that a generic api is very
nice thing to have, but it should not add overhead, or at least not much
to the framework. 

Maybe it's possible to split the hurd depend part away, so that we
have hurd api and and generic api part. But maybe I'm just talking bullshit... 

If there is a good way to have a generic interface and also our badly
wanted hurd features :) then we shall do it so. All depends how we
design the interface.