Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 5 Aug 1998 20:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Tom <tom@uniserve.com>
To:        Andrew Reilly <reilly@zeta.org.au>
Cc:        current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Heads up on LFS
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.980805202349.20955A-100000@shell.uniserve.ca>
In-Reply-To: <19980806112955.A4299@reilly.home>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Andrew Reilly wrote:

...
> Now if you were prepared to rely on hardware memory /protection/
> without using the hardware memory /mapping/, you could probably
> do the same thing in C or C++ (or assembly language).  I believe
> that this has been tried in some of the Acorn ARM based OS's
> (RiscOS and the Newton OS.)

  Most microkernel OSes are this way.  QNX for x86 does something similar.
The kernel is basically just a scheduler (a QNX kernel is less than 50K),
and all other services that would normally be in the kernel are in their
own address spaces, using strict IPC interfaces between modules.

> -- 
> Andrew

Tom


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980805202349.20955A-100000>