Re: Mach independence
Ondrej Hurt <Ondrej.Hurt@seznam.cz> writes:
> I suppose that's the point of L4. Features needed by Hurd must be
> implemented in the mk abstraction layer of Hurd. Do you think there
> are some areas that are not easy to be implemented efficiently on L4
I don't think we want that sort of abstraction layer in general; we
already have about the right sets of abstractions. The mailing list
archives of the relevant lists have already gone into the difficulties
that exist with L4; I don't want to repeat them again.
> If your goal is layer very similar to some subset of the Mach API
> (i.e. Mach emulation in fact) then it is only matter of writing some
> typedefs, constants, wrapper routines/macros, putting them into a
> few header files and replacing all Mach stuff with them.
It's both more than that and less than that.