Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:17:45 +1100 From: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org> To: Justin Walker <justin@mac.com> Cc: FreeBSD Architecture <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Continuation of the Mach Microkernel Message-ID: <20050125081745.GA31139@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <1355BB97-6E8C-11D9-B0E6-00306544D642@mac.com> References: <A88CBA6A-6BF6-11D9-8C84-00112433589E@comcast.net> <20050125035045.GA27895@gurney.reilly.home> <1355BB97-6E8C-11D9-B0E6-00306544D642@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:46:28PM -0800, Justin Walker wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2005, at 19:50, Andrew Reilly wrote: > > >On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 04:51:51PM -0500, Nicholas Ink wrote: > >> Has anyone tried running the Mach microkernel with a new version of > >>FreeBSD, like 5.x? I'm working on a project involving that > >>microkernel, but I'm concerned that it won't work with newer versions > >>of FreeBSD. > >> Does anyone know anything or know of any resources that might assist > >>me? > > > >How about the Darwin codebase? They recently upgraded their > >user-land to FreeBSD 5.something, I believe. > > Nope. The Darwin kernel uses some updates from FreeBSD 4.x, not 5.x. I specified user-land, but the web pages on developer.apple.com indicate that synchronization-with and tracking of FreeBSD-stable is ongoing work. -stable now refers to 5.x, and I can't imagine them not wanting to incorporate some of the 5.x fine-grain locking work as it settles down. After all, there are plenty of multi-processor Mac boxes out there. > It isn't a wholesale import of FreeBSD, though. The device driver > model is completely different, as is the interface between the network > stacks and the devices. True. > Also, just to be clear, Darwin doesn't use Mach as a microkernel. The > implementation is more like Mach 2.x than Mac 3.x (even though the Mach > bits are based on Mach 3.x): there is no support for running "guest > OSs" in Darwin. I've often been puzzled why anyone using the Mach + BSD-single-server combination bothered with the "microkernel" moniker. Where's the win, there? Surely if you want a microkernel, then you look towards QNX, Hurd, Amoeba, L4 et al. Since FreeBSD was mentioned in the single-server context, I assumed that microkernel-ness wasn't important. I am interested in these issues, but haven't had the time or opportunity to investigate them myself, yet. Cheers, -- Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050125081745.GA31139>