Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 21 May 1996 12:48:49 -0400 (EDT) | From | Matthew Kramer <> | Subject | Re: Macintosh kernel out |
| |
On Mon, 20 May 1996, Povl H. Pedersen wrote:
> Why shouldn't it end up in the source tree ? It has nothing to do with > bloating the kernel. Au contraire. A Mach port removes stuff from the > kernel (and puts it in microkernel).
Yes, it moves a lot of the base functionality to the microkernel, which when added to all the other BS in the microkernel, you're looking at a system that won't run in under 4-6 megs of RAM probably. Actually I seem to remember Apple saying it would require 8, but I can't recall for sure. So much for the 2 meg days.
> And generally, a Mach version would make it easier to get an initial port > of Linux running on more platforms.
I agree, but that's more of a develepment tool than an end-user product. With kernel sources now approaching 6 megs, I think this is getting a bit senseless. But this arguement has come up before and been shot down for similar sources, so who knows.
> Not much I guess. You can simplify lots of the driver functionality I > think, so that you can reduce most of the overhead to the overhead of > function calls.
Your programs still make the calls to the linux kernel, which has to identify the calls, then make the approiate call to the microkernel. If a return value is given, it is sent back to the kernel, which sends it to the program. Too much overhead.
> According to OSF, it was not much slower than the direct one on a x86 PC.
Yeah, and Microsoft says 95 is the platform of the future. Who's gonna rip up their own products and work?
Matthew
|  |