Farid Hajji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Basically, it proved difficult to emulate the complete Mach API. If you > want to implement L4Mach, it will most likely provide just a subset of > Mach, so that we can get the Hurd up and running (in a first step).
Making the Hurd run on L4 should be done by porting it. Making L4 emulate Mach, in part or in whole, is probably a waste of time. > The most difficult issue is IMO how you want to handle asynch. IPC, > especially the notifying mechanism. In the Hurd, you need at various > parts to detect/receive something called "dead port notification". > Emulating this on top of L4 (with or without the help of a L4Mach > server) may be difficult, but I'm not sure yet. Do you mean dead name notifications, or no-senders notifications? The former are not so important. The latter are very important. > This is the most important question regarting the port. If the Hurd had > been designed with other microkernels in mind, it would have certainly > been more restrictive on its use of mach-specific IPC-ism. We *have* been so restrictive. The need of no-senders is quite inherent; if you understand what we use them for, it's clear that any system simply must provide a similar function, whether "asynch" or not. Thomas _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
