[lkml]   [1996]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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?


 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.055 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site