DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-07
Re: just curious
:I Hope the project works out. It's ambitious but it
:Do you plan to work toward something like a
:microkernel-ish system? Some statements on the site
:seem to implicate this.
Well, the traditional definition of a microkernel has a lot of negative
connotations, which I blame on Mach. DragonFly is definitely not going
to be a traditional microkernel but it will retain many of the better
qualities of a microkernel design.
For example, DragonFly will use messaging heavily but the messaging will
be a light-weight design that is, by itself, incapable of transiting a
protection boundary. The core messaging structures will not track
pointers or message sizes, for example. Instead what we will do is
support the transiting of protection boundaries by creating port
abstractions which do the appropriate translation into and out of forms
that *can* cross a protection boundary.
In otherwords, we will be able to use messaging to be able to abstract
certain devices and VFS layers into userland, which is tradtionally
considered to be 'microkernel design', but that abstraction is not going
to hogtie in-kernel implementations with overhead bloat nor are we going
to require protection separation for the majority of devices in what
would be considered a 'production' system.