lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: The GGI and EvStack debate -- Linus and such persons please reard.
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:44:47 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Jon M. Taylor" <taylorj@ecs.csus.edu>
>
> I like the EvStack concept of consoles consisting of a series of
> pluggable event handler/router modules. I like the idea of the kernel
> having a generic, flexible and fast way to pass abstract messages between
> itself and userspace. And I like the idea that any console IO device, no
> matter how wierd, can have all its capabilities encapsulated into a set of
> abstracted messages.
>
> That last is very important for graphics hardware, where the
> feature set that can be exported by the kernel to userspace varies widely
> from card to card. But the same message-based paradigm can allow any sort
> of odd device to be easily supported by Linux - just write a kernel driver
> that wraps a thin message layer over the raw hardware functionality and
> let the userspace stacks contain the logic the glues the devices together
> into a "console".
>
> Fast? Generic? Message passing?
>
> I take it you're not familiar with that performance abomination known as
> System V Streams --- beloved by the formal computer science types for
> being clean --- and cursed by those who wanted a fast and efficient
> network stack.

Indeed I am not. All I know about STREAMS is that everyone seems
to loathe it and that for some reason EvStack strikes people as being
very similar. What was it about STREAMS that was bad?

Jon

---
'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in
becoming one with God.'
- Scientist G. Richard Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans