From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 29 02:43:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA08181 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:43:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA08173 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:43:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (haldjas.folklore.ee [172.17.2.1] (may be forged)) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP id MAA10949; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:43:39 +0200 (EET) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:43:39 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: Niall Smart cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Loading code from userland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Niall Smart wrote: > On Oct 28, 5:57pm, Terry Lambert wrote: > [snip] > > FreeBSD does not support the concept of more than two protection > > domains, mostly because it aspires to run on more hardware than just > > VAX and Intel processors, and some of that hardware only supports > > two domain identities. > > I presume the two protection domains you refer to are user and supervisor > modes. > Yes. Well, they are actually kernel/userland modes if you look from the software angle. > > In practice, the LKM will need to be frequently recompiled. A > > procedurally abstract interface does not depend on structure > > references, so this is another reason to use one instead of LKM's > > (at least until there is a formal DDI/DKI specification). > > What do DDI/DDK stand for? Is there a project implementing them (you > seem to think they are useful) > DDK=Device Development Kit. And no, there is no known project (AFAIK) under way of creating such beasts. > Niall > Sander